in the Interest of E.M. and E.B.
09-21-00317-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- June 2019: DFPS removed E.M. and E.B. after reports they had been left with their bedridden grandmother in a filthy, roach-infested home with little food or utilities. Trial court appointed DFPS temporary managing conservator.
- Investigations revealed Father’s ongoing substance use (marijuana, PCP), multiple positive drug tests after removal (including during the case), and a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder.
- Evidence of violence and threats: reports of domestic violence (Mother reported Father threw E.B.), threats toward foster parents, the caseworker, and the judge, and anger/instability noted by Adult Protective Services.
- Investigator testified Father had predatory sexual relationships with minors (including one pregnancy and transmission of STDs), corroborated by photos/texts and criminal investigations.
- DFPS sought termination on multiple statutory grounds and argued termination was in the children’s best interest; after a bench trial the court terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence for grounds D, E, O, P, and the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ground D (§161.001(b)(1)(D): environment endangers child) | DFPS: filthy home, lack of food/utilities, leaving children with unsuitable grandmother, domestic violence, and Father’s drug use exposed children to danger. | Father: evidence legally and factually insufficient to prove he knowingly allowed dangerous conditions. | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support D. |
| Ground E (§161.001(b)(1)(E): course of conduct endangers child) | DFPS: Father’s continued drug use after removal, history of domestic violence, threats, and sexual conduct with minors show a conscious course of conduct endangering children. | Father: challenged legal and factual sufficiency. | Court: Evidence sufficient to support E. |
| Grounds O & P (failure to comply with court-ordered plan; controlled-substance use endangering child) | DFPS: Father failed services and continued using controlled substances, endangering children. | Father: insufficiency of evidence. | Court: Declined to address O and P because D or E alone sufficed to affirm. |
| Best interest | DFPS: children thriving in foster care; aunt or foster parents available and safe; Father’s instability, substance use, and conduct make reunification unsafe. | Father: contested sufficiency; pointed to some compliance/negative tests. | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in the children’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency in termination cases and treatment of conflicting evidence)
- In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (heightened review and analysis of D/E findings and collateral consequences)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of “endanger” as expose to loss or injury)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental drug use may constitute endangering course of conduct)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive factors for determining children’s best interest)