in the Interest of H.S., a Child
04-21-00007-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- DFPS removed H.S. after allegations of neglect by Mother, including that Mother threw H.S. out of a car window; H.S. was placed with maternal grandparents.
- Father (Appellant) was incarcerated on a drug-related charge during the case, had not seen the child in about three years, and had no meaningful contact or support during that time.
- Father knew of Mother’s mental-health issues and her inadequate care but did not seek visitation or otherwise intervene to protect H.S. when H.S. was returned to Mother previously.
- The grandparents provided a stable, nurturing home; H.S. improved developmentally after placement and was bonded to them; they sought to adopt.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(C), (N), and (O) and further found termination was in H.S.’s best interest; the court terminated both parents’ rights.
- Father appealed, challenging only the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best‑interest finding; the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to show termination is in the child’s best interest | DFPS/guardian: evidence of Father’s absence, history of substance abuse/domestic violence, failure to engage in services, and the child’s bond and stability with grandparents supported best interest | Father: challenged legal sufficiency of best‑interest proof | Held: legally sufficient — a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief termination served H.S.’s best interest |
| Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to show termination is in the child’s best interest | DFPS/guardian: same evidence supports a firm conviction under the clear‑and‑convincing standard | Father: challenged factual sufficiency | Held: factually sufficient — disputed evidence did not preclude a reasonable factfinder from resolving credibility in favor of termination |
| Whether the trial court properly relied on statutory and Holley factors | DFPS: caseworker testimony and child’s condition favored statutory/Holley factors (stability, parental omissions, services, safety) | Father: argued insufficiency to meet those factors | Held: trial court reasonably applied statutory factors and Holley factors in finding best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (enumeration of best‑interest factors used in parental‑rights cases)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility and weight of testimony)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal‑sufficiency review under clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual‑sufficiency standard under clear‑and‑convincing evidence)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (application of Holley factors and best‑interest analysis in termination appeals)