in the Interest of D.C. and E.C., Children
10-15-00193-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- Parents J.C. and Er.C. had three children (A.C., D.C., E.C.); CPS investigated unsafe, unsanitary apartment conditions (trash, feces, mold, no smoke detectors, open hazards) and reports of domestic violence and parental instability.
- Caseworkers found children unsupervised, one child naked and playing in feces; medical/developmental delays were noted for D.C.; parents had criminal histories, mental-health issues, noncompliance with services, and unstable housing/finances.
- Children were removed; initially placed with friends (Schulteas) but later with foster family (the Barretts); A.C. was born Aug. 24, 2014 and had lived with the Barretts since birth (≈9 months before trial); D.C. and E.C. had been with Barretts over 12 months.
- Department sought termination of parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment grounds); trial court terminated parental rights and allowed the Barretts to intervene regarding A.C.
- On appeal, parents challenged (1) legal and factual sufficiency of evidence supporting termination (arguing lack of a course-of-conduct), and (2) the Barretts’ standing to intervene as to A.C.; the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department/Intervenors) | Defendant's Argument (J.C./Er.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate under §161.001(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment) | Evidence (deplorable housing, unsupervised children, domestic violence, parental instability, prior CPS history) supports endangerment and a course of conduct | Appellants argued Department failed to prove a course-of-conduct (required for (E) and, they argued, for (D)) | Affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient for (D) (single act or environment can support) and (E) (course of endangering conduct supported) |
| Standing of Barretts to intervene for A.C. | Barretts had substantial past contact with A.C. (custody since birth) and had foster/placement standing re siblings; could invoke §102.005(5) (substantial past contact) or §102.004(b) | Appellants argued Barretts lacked standing because they had not been foster placement for A.C. for 12 months as required by §102.003(a)(12) | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Barretts had substantial past contact with A.C. and permissive intervention was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires heightened standard for termination)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.) (strict scrutiny and construction of termination statutes in favor of parent)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.) (parental rights are not absolute; child protection paramount)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.) (endangerment may be inferred from parental misconduct)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in termination cases)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex.) (factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (course-of-conduct requirement for §161.001(1)(E))
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex.) (parental conduct before birth or with older children may be considered for endangerment)