in the Interest of D.D v. a Child, 04-21-00159-CV

Background

DFPS filed to terminate mother's parental rights to D.D.V. on Jan 29, 2020; bench trial was held April 1, 2021; trial court terminated under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(C), (N), and (O) and found termination in the child’s best interest.
Child taken into custody after an August 2019 report of substance abuse in the father’s home; mother had had no meaningful contact with the child for about three years (since ~2017).
Mother claimed the father refused to return the child (effectively “kidnapped” him), that she sent diapers/money, and that her absence was involuntary and caused by lack of resources to litigate custody.
Department witnesses and father testified mother provided little or no support, did not engage in services, refused assessment/contacts, and had an extensive criminal/CPS history; occasional gifts were deemed insufficient to meet the support duty.
At removal the child was developmentally delayed and had medical needs; in foster-to-adopt placement the child improved, bonded with the foster mother, and received therapies.
The trial court’s findings on subsection (C) (voluntary leaving without adequate support) and best interest were sustained on appeal; judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(C) (voluntarily left child or left with another without adequate support for ≥6 months)	Mother: absence was involuntary because father refused to return the child; she sent diapers/money and tried to contact him but lacked funds for an attorney.	DFPS/Father: mother had no contact for ~3 years, provided minimal support (one occasion of diapers alleged), and occasional gifts do not satisfy duty of support.	Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support subsection (C).
Best‑interest finding	Mother: no evidence she cannot meet child’s needs; child’s therapy needs are manageable; Department failed to assess her home and did not make reasonable reunification efforts.	DFPS: child was delayed and medically/therapeutically needy at removal but now thriving in foster care; mother failed to cooperate, engage in services, or allow assessment and has CPS/criminal history.	Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination is in child’s best interest.
Alleged failure by DFPS to assess mother / make reasonable efforts to place child with her	Mother: DFPS refused to place child with her and did not adequately investigate or assess her home despite her request.	DFPS: attempted contacts and meetings; mother refused assessments, did not attend family conferences, and would not allow entry to assess the residence.	Court: Record shows mother impeded assessment and did not cooperate; mother’s claim does not undermine termination.

Key Cases Cited

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in parental‑termination cases)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (factfinder is sole judge of credibility and weight of evidence)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground plus best interest required to support termination)
In re B.T., 954 S.W.2d 44 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied) (occasional gifts insufficient to meet parental duty of support)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping child with parent is in child’s best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive list of factors for best‑interest determinations)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence proving statutory ground is probative on best interest)
In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (court may judge parent’s future conduct by past conduct)