in the Interest of E.W., a Child, 494 S.W.3d 287

Background

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed to terminate Anna and Jim Black’s parental rights to two-year-old Ethan; a brief final hearing produced a sparse record (no exhibits, <30 pages).
Anna signed a Rule 11 settlement agreement consenting not to contest termination under Family Code §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan) but later attempted to revoke that agreement; the Agreement stated it was irrevocable and promised limited post-termination contact/updates.
At trial the Department’s new caseworker had limited knowledge of the service plan; testimony indicated both parents had not completed all services and the target completion date was two months after the hearing.
The trial court orally found termination grounds (D) (allowing child to remain in dangerous conditions) and (E) (engaging in conduct endangering the child) proven by clear and convincing evidence and alternatively found (O) under the Agreement; the written judgment included (D), (E), and (O).
On appeal the court reviewed legal/factual sufficiency: it held the Department introduced no admissible evidence at the final hearing to support (D) or (E) (trial court impermissibly relied on judicial knowledge / pleadings rather than admitted evidence); evidence was also insufficient to establish (O) because there was no proof Ethan had been removed for abuse or neglect as required by §161.001(1)(O).
The appellate court reversed the terminations and remanded for a new trial but left the Department’s conservatorship appointment undisturbed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(D) and (E) termination	Department: facts in file and prior reports support endangerment; trial court may take judicial notice of file	Anna/Jim: no admissible testimony or exhibits proving domestic violence, drug use, or other endangering conduct at the final hearing	Reversed — no admissible evidence presented at final hearing to support (D) or (E); trial court improperly relied on judicial knowledge/pleadings
Enforceability/effect of Rule 11 Agreement on ground (O)	Department: Agreement and file justify termination under (O); written judgment rests on evidence not the Agreement	Anna: she revoked consent; even with Agreement the Dept still must prove statutory elements of (O) by evidence	Court did not decide revocability; held Dept still failed to prove (O) because record lacked proof child was removed for abuse/neglect required by (O)
Sufficiency of evidence that child was removed for abuse or neglect (predicate for (O))	Department: prior temporary orders and pleadings establish need for removal	Anna/Jim: pleadings are not evidence; court may not judicially notice truth of factual allegations in pleadings without admitting them	Reversed — no admissible evidence at final hearing proving removal due to abuse/neglect; judicial notice of pleadings’ facts inappropriate
Best interest of the child	Department: child bonded with foster family, needs met, foster family wants to adopt	Anna/Jim: insufficient proof termination is required; presumption favors keeping child with parent	Reversed — evidence at trial was insufficient under Holley factors to form firm belief termination was in child’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and heightened review in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (explains clear-and-convincing proof standard in parental-termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency review standards in termination appeals)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (commands strict scrutiny of termination proceedings in favor of the parent)
State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1979) (per curiam) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (addressing deference to factfinder in sufficiency review)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate statutory ground plus best interest is required for termination)
Davis v. State, 293 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (trial court may not judicially notice truth of factual contents of affidavits or pleadings)