in the Interest of D.J v. a Child
14-15-00419-CV
| Tex. | Oct 27, 2015Background
- Mother had three young children; in June 2013 police arrested Mother for child endangerment after neighbors reported the children left alone and Jason had a head injury; the Department took the children into protective custody and obtained temporary managing conservatorship of David.
- Mother pleaded guilty/received deferred adjudication for two child-endangerment charges (one for Jason in 2013; one for David in 2011), but the record lacks facts for the 2011 plea.
- The Department sought termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D),(E),(L),(O); the trial court found termination warranted under (L) and (O) and that termination was in David’s best interest; the court appointed the Department sole managing conservator and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
- On appeal Mother challenged legal and factual sufficiency as to (O) (failure to comply with court-ordered family service plan / removal for abuse or neglect) and as to best interest; she did not challenge the (L) finding but the court of appeals examined (L) and concluded the record fails to show the statutory element of death or serious injury.
- The court held insufficient evidence to support (L) because the Department did not prove a death or serious injury resulting from the offenses (and the 2011 plea record is missing), but concluded the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (O) and that termination was in David’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports §161.001(1)(L) (conviction/deferred adjudication for death or serious injury) | Mother did not contest (L) on appeal, but record lacks proof David (or Jason) suffered "serious injury" tied to convictions. | Department relied on Mother’s deferred adjudications for child endangerment as satisfying (L). | Court: (L) not proven — no evidence of death or serious injury and missing facts for 2011 plea, so (L) cannot support termination. |
| Whether evidence supports §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with service plan and removal "for the abuse or neglect of the child") | Mother argued David was not removed for abuse/neglect of David specifically and contested some factual allegations (claimed neighbor supervised). | Department: removal was for abuse/neglect because Mother left young children unsupervised, her guilty plea and case facts support removal for abuse/neglect (including risk to other children). | Court: (O) proven — evidence legally and factually sufficient that David was removed due to abuse/neglect (risk and actual neglect). |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Mother emphasized participation in services, therapy progress, housing and employment, and disputed some negative observations. | Department and guardian ad litem pointed to inconsistent parenting during visits, regression in child’s behavior after contact with Mother, prior endangerment, and need for permanency/stability with aunt. | Court: Best-interest finding affirmed — overall record supports that termination is in David’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (parental rights implicate constitutional rights but are not absolute)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and legal/factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency in termination proceedings)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (§161.001(1)(O) removal "for abuse or neglect" includes risk of abuse/neglect and harm to other children)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (child’s interests may outweigh preservation of parental rights)
- McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (unchallenged findings are binding on appeal absent no evidence or legal contrary)