in the Interest of D.R.M., J.Y.M., D.M.M., and D.N.M., Children
13-17-00320-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Father (J.M.) appealed termination of his parental rights to four children (two older children removed for medical neglect in 2013; twins born prematurely in 2015 and placed in NICU and then relocated).
- Grandmother was appointed permanent managing conservator of the two older children in 2014, later surrendered them to CPS in 2016; termination proceedings were filed and consolidated for all four children.
- An associate judge terminated Father’s rights in 2016 under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1) subsections (A), (C), (N), and (O); Father requested de novo trial; this Court remanded and a de novo trial occurred in 2017, which again resulted in termination.
- Department caseworker testified Father had minimal contact/visits, failed to complete court-ordered services (parenting classes, psychological evaluation, counseling), was homeless and intermittently incarcerated, and had inconsistent drug-test results (at least one positive for cocaine).
- Department prepared service plans, offered transportation and assistance, and performed a home study of paternal grandfather which was not approved due to inadequate income and sleeping arrangements; trial court found constructive abandonment under §161.001(b)(1)(N) and that termination was in children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s constitutional rights (4th, 5th, 14th) were violated | Father: Department witness misled court, pleadings were overbroad depriving due process, twin removal was unlawful seizure | Department: Father failed to timely raise objections in trial court; pleadings alleged the same statutory grounds; removals were subject to separate relief not pursued | Court: Not preserved; even on merits, pleadings sufficient and removal not challenged here — issue overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination under §161.001(b)(1)(N) (constructive abandonment) | Father: Insufficient evidence; incarceration, lack of transport, homelessness hindered compliance | Department: Service plan existed, assistance/transport offered, Father rarely visited, failed to complete services, home placement unsuitable | Court: Legal and factual sufficiency met — termination supported under (N) |
| Sufficiency under other §161.001(b)(1) grounds (A, C, O) | Father: Evidence insufficient on alleged acts/omissions under these subsections | Department: Only one statutory ground required; (N) proven | Court: Declined separate analysis because (N) dispositive — issues overruled |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (§161.001(b)(2)) | Father: Termination not shown to be in children’s best interests | Department: Holley factors favor termination — little parent-child bond, danger from prior neglect, lack of stability and services completion | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination is in children’s best interests — issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.D. & B.R.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003) (timely trial-court objections required to preserve constitutional claims in termination cases)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (legal and factual sufficiency standards for termination appeals)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (only one statutory ground under §161.001(b)(1) is required to support termination)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exclusive factors for best‑interest determination)
- In re N.R.T., 338 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (service plans can satisfy reasonable-efforts requirement)
- In re B.W., 99 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. App.—Houston 2003) (failure to preserve constitutional challenge forfeits appellate review)
- In re J.D.S., 494 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015) (post-removal custody orders reviewed separately, mandamus may be proper vehicle)