in the Interest of E.D., Children
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14341
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Father (appellant) and mother (Tina) had four children: ED(1) (2001), ED(2) (2003), ID (2006), JD (2008); Tina voluntarily relinquished her rights; father appealed termination of his parental rights.
- Trial court terminated father’s rights under Texas Family Code §161.001(1)(D),(E),(F),(O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; Department appointed permanent managing conservator.
- Key factual incidents over ~2003–2011 relied on by the State: newborn withdrawal allegation (2003), children found unsupervised in hotel (2005), ID found roaming hotel parking lot (2009), children left outside Sea World gate (2009), JD found alone in father’s locked office (Nov. 2, 2011) and other post-removal safety concerns.
- Father testified he renewed his medical license, obtained employment in Laredo, rents nearby apartment with daycare/school access, complied with counseling and parenting classes, and arranged services (e.g., speech therapy for JD).
- CPS supervisor and counselor testified children needed stability; CPS emphasized grandparents could adopt only if parental rights terminated because of subsidy concerns; trial court nevertheless found grandparents not suitable conservators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence for statutory termination grounds | State relied on incidents over eight years to support §161.001(1) grounds and argued same conduct supported best interest | Father disputed sufficiency, pointed to current stability, employment, compliance with services, and improvements | Court focused on best-interest prong and concluded evidence legally insufficient to support best interest; reversed termination and rendered judgment for father |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | CPS: children need a stable, permanent placement; adoption by grandparents would provide permanency and subsidy; pattern of parental neglect supports termination | Father: argued for reunification plan (finish school year in foster care then gradual return), showed current housing, employment, services compliance, and positive history when children lived with him | Held: Direct and circumstantial evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard for best interest; reversal required |
| Use of financial subsidy/adoption motive in best-interest analysis | State emphasized grandparents’ potential adoption and subsidy as part of permanency plan | Father argued financial motives cannot justify terminating parental rights | Held: Court rejected subsidy as an appropriate basis for best-interest finding and discounted it as a determinative reason |
| Whether isolated incidents over long period establish a pattern warranting termination | State pointed to five incidents spanning 2003–2011 as a pattern of endangerment and neglect supporting both statutory grounds and best interest | Father characterized incidents as isolated, contested facts, and offered evidence of remedial steps and current stability | Held: Court held these isolated incidents over eight years insufficient, by clear and convincing evidence, to show termination serves children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for best‑interest analysis)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in termination cases; consider all evidence favorable to finding and disregard incredible evidence)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (strong presumption that keeping a child with parent is in best interest)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence proving statutory grounds may also be probative of best interest but does not relieve State of proving best interest)
- In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (best‑interest analysis may consider circumstantial evidence and totality of evidence)