in the Interest of E.M., a Child
05-17-00383-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- CPS removed child E.M. (born 2011) after parents’ drug use, transience, and Mother’s arrest; E.M. was placed in foster care in 2015.
- Father tested positive for amphetamines in 2013, had sporadic drug testing during the case, and missed or delayed many required tests.
- Father was arrested multiple times during the case (including family-violence charges and probation violations), spent time in jail, and missed or was late to supervised visits; when visits occurred they were positive and the child was bonded to him.
- A psychologist (Dr. Dartson) evaluated Father and recommended against placement with him, citing prior indecency-with-a-child conviction (1992), domestic-violence history, poor anger control, impulsivity, and risk to the child.
- Child’s therapist observed sexualized and aggressive behaviors in E.M., and reported that E.M. described witnessing parental fighting and drug use.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department/Trial Court/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Father: Visits showed bonding; psychologist’s limited evaluation and lack of observed parent-child visit cannot overcome presumption favoring parent-child relationship | Evidence of drug use, domestic violence, criminal history, instability, failure to complete services, psychologist and therapist opinions support that termination is in child’s best interest | Affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in parental-rights termination; view evidence in the light most favorable and disregard discredited evidence)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual-sufficiency review in termination cases; give deference to factfinder)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (strong presumption favoring keeping child with parent)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (statutory and Holley factors may overlap; parental endangerment evidence can support best-interest finding)
- In re C.R., 263 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (application of Holley and statutory best-interest considerations in termination appeals)