in the Interest of D.H.
09-16-00163-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Mother (L.P.) appealed termination of her parental rights to child D.H.; trial court found statutory grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P) and best interest under §161.001(b)(2).
- CPS caseworker testified L.P. used drugs during pregnancy, tested positive for multiple controlled substances during the case, and was intoxicated during a visit with D.H.
- CASA reports and the family service plan indicated L.P. admitted drug use while pregnant and was validated for physical abuse related to prenatal drug use.
- L.P. failed to provide necessities (formula, food, clothing), missed numerous CPS appointments, did not complete court-ordered substance abuse treatment, and could not maintain a stable household.
- D.H. was living with an aunt and uncle who wanted to adopt him and with whom the caseworker testified he was thriving.
- L.P. was represented by counsel at the termination hearing but did not personally appear and presented no witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.P.) | Defendant's Argument (CPS/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1: Whether evidence showed L.P. knowingly placed/allowed D.H. to remain in endangering conditions (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D)) | Evidence legally and factually insufficient to show she knowingly placed/allowed endangerment | Prenatal and postnatal drug use, intoxication during visit, failures to provide care and comply with services supported endangerment | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported §161.001(b)(1)(D) finding |
| 5: Whether termination was in D.H.’s best interest (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(2)) | Termination not shown to be in child’s best interest | Child was thriving with relatives who seek to adopt; prompt permanent placement in safe environment is presumed best | Affirmed: trial court could reasonably find termination was in child’s best interest |
| 2–4: Other statutory grounds alleged | (raised but not argued on appeal) | (proved at trial as alternative predicates) | Not addressed on appeal because resolution of issues 1 and 5 was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency in parental-rights termination cases)
- In the Interest of J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (clear-and-convincing evidence requirement and elements for termination)
- Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (endangerment analysis focuses on child’s physical environment and parental conduct)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest determination)