In the Interest of E.C.R., Child
402 S.W.3d 239
| Tex. | 2013Background
- M.R. abused Y.C., leading to removal of E.C.R. under Family Code 262.104 due to immediate danger to E.C.R.'s health or safety.
- E.C.R. was placed with foster parents; paternity was undetermined; the Department sought conservatorship and termination of parental rights.
- A court-ordered service plan required M.R. to complete psychiatric, psychological, counseling, parenting, drug testing, and housing/agency programs.
- The Department presented evidence that M.R. did not complete key requirements (psychiatric/psychological treatment, employment, housing for six months).
- The trial court denied M.R.’s rights under subsection O, finding termination in E.C.R.’s best interest; the court of appeals reversed, omitting consideration of abuse/neglect of E.C.R. in light of M.R.’s abuse of Y.C.
- The Supreme Court held that abuse or neglect under subsection O can include risks to a child’s health or safety and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 161.001(1)(O) requires abuse/neglect of the specific child | M.R. argues removal was due to risk from Y.C.'s abuse, not abuse/neglect of E.C.R. | Department contends removal for abuse or neglect can be shown by risks to E.C.R. in the home. | Abuse/neglect includes risk to the specific child; record supports removal under O. |
| Whether removal under Chapter 262 for abuse/neglect includes risks, not just actual injury | Removal based only on actual abuse of Y.C. does not prove O. | Removal standards recognize risk to health/safety as sufficient. | Yes; the child can be removed for risk to health or safety under 262 procedures. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for best-interest termination under Holley factors | Evidence mainly shows past failures; best interest not proven. | Holley factors and overall record support termination. | A reasonable factfinder could conclude termination is in E.C.R.'s best interest; remanded for factual-sufficiency review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (discussed standard for termination under 161.001(1)(O) and harmless error analysis when multiple grounds are alleged)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parents’ rights termination must balance parent’s liberty with child’s welfare; Holley factors cited)
- In re C.B., 376 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012) (termination under O requires actual abuse/neglect or substantial risk demonstrating endangerment)
- D.F. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 393 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (review of removal under 262; evidence must show danger to health or safety)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best interest determination)