In the Interest of E.C.R.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2114
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- DFPS removed E.C.R. from M.R. in June 2010; temporary managing conservatorship granted July 8, 2010.
- A bench trial on August 18, 2011 terminated M.R.’s parental rights under Texas Family Code §161.001(1)(O) only; DFPS sought other grounds but the court relied on (O).
- The trial record showed concern for M.R.’s treatment of her other child Y.C. and various service-plan deficiencies (psychiatric evaluation, therapy, employment, housing).
- Evidence included M.R.’s prior injury-to-a-child conviction related to Y.C., incarceration, and a history of unstable housing and unemployment.
- DFPS argued removal was due to risk/endangerment stemming from M.R.’s conduct toward Y.C. and other risk factors; M.R. argued there was no direct abuse/neglect of E.C.R. leading to removal.
- The trial court entered a decree terminating M.R.’s rights, with DFPS named sole managing conservator; on appeal, the court reversed and rendered to deny termination under §161.001(1)(O) and affirmed the rest of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §161.001(1)(O) supports termination | M.R. contends DFPS did not prove removal for abuse/neglect of E.C.R. | DFPS argues removal was due to risk to E.C.R., evidenced by conduct toward siblings and service-plan noncompliance. | Legally insufficient evidence under §161.001(1)(O); reversal of termination |
| Whether best-interest finding supports termination given insufficient §161.001(1)(O) proof | Best interest alone cannot sustain termination without §161.001(1)(O) proof. | Trial court had validity in best-interest finding independent of §161.001(1)(O). | Not reached/undetermined since §161.001(1)(O) was not proved; the court reversed on (O) grounds |
| Whether cross-points on §161.001(E) or §161.001(L) should be reviewed | DFPS requests review of additional grounds; en banc reconsideration requested. | Panel should consider cross-points under §161.001(E) or (L). | Cross-points not considered; DFPS’s alternative grounds not upheld due to lack of §161.001(1)(O) support |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (establishes clear-and-convincing standard and two-prong proof for termination)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights are constitutional but not absolute; need clear proof)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clarifies dual prong requirement and standard of review)
- Vasquez v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (PTA: termination must be on grounds pleaded and found by court)
- In re A.A.A., 265 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (establishes initial-removal-abuse/neglect requirement for §161.001(l)(O))
- In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (evidence of risk/endangerment can support termination under E; relevance of sibling conduct)
- Jordan v. DFPS, 325 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2010) (endangerment analysis for §161.001(1)(D)/(E); conduct not directed to child can still endanger)
- In re E.S.C., 287 S.W.3d 471 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (evidence of neglect and conditions affecting multiple children)