In the Interest of E.N.C., J.A.C., S.A.L., N.A.G. and C.G.L.
384 S.W.3d 796
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Francisco, a Mexican citizen, had a Wisconsin conviction involving a minor long before his children were born and was placed on probation.
- He moved to Texas, separated from Edna, and fathered J.A.C. (b. 1998) and S.A.L. (b. 1999); he provided support before deportation.
- Francisco was deported after seeking a green card; he has lived in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, since then and cannot return to the U.S. for ten years.
- The Department of Family and Protective Services investigated Edna for neglectful supervision; after a DWI arrest with S.A.L. in the car, the Department sought to terminate both Edna’s and Francisco’s parental rights.
- Tests indicated Francisco remained involved via phone calls and occasional support, but the Department never offered Francisco a service plan or formal visitation in the U.S. after deportation.
- The trial court terminated Francisco’s parental rights based on section 161.001(1)(E) and best-interest under section 161.001(2); the court of appeals affirmed as to the endangerment finding and best interests before this Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the endangerment finding legally sufficient under 161.001(1)(E)? | Francisco | Francisco | No; evidence fails to show endangerment by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (defines legal sufficiency review in termination cases and proper deference to factfinder)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (endangerment framework and standard of review for best interests)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process standard for termination of parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (due process protection for parental rights)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (due process coverage of all persons in the U.S., including aliens)
- Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1997) (limits on inferring endangerment from speculative evidence)
- In re Angelica L., 767 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2009) (foreign-national status and best-interest considerations)
- In re Doe, 281 P.3d 95 (Idaho 2012) (best-interest evaluation and de-emphasizing living standards)