in the Interest of I.L.M.
464 S.W.3d 421
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Father lived with two older sons (born 2006, 2008); 2010 CPS investigation found poor living conditions, father admitted marijuana use and later tested positive for marijuana and cocaine repeatedly between 2011–2014.
- Father had intermittent incarceration and a 2010 conviction for assault of a family member; additional convictions through 2013.
- Department (DFPS) became temporary managing conservator of two children in 2012 and placed them in foster care; a third child (born 2011) tested positive for marijuana at birth and was placed with grandmother in 2012.
- DFPS sought termination of the parents’ rights in 2011 and again in 2014; the 2012 order denied termination but appointed conservatorship; later proceedings were consolidated.
- At a 2014 bench trial the trial court terminated the parents’ rights; father appeals arguing (1) the court improperly relied on evidence from prior proceedings and (2) evidence was legally/factually insufficient to support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence from prior termination proceedings | Father: prior proceedings denied termination; reliance on earlier evidence was improper and deprived him of notice | DFPS: pleadings alleged materially changed circumstances and §161.004 allows prior evidence; father did not except or object at trial | Court: DFPS pleaded changed circumstances; §161.004 permits use of earlier evidence; father waived complaint by not excepting or objecting; admission proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for endangerment under §161.001(1)(E) | Father: his contacts were limited to visitation and many offenses predate children; tests can be erroneous | DFPS: repeated positive drug tests, criminal convictions (including family violence), and incarcerations showed a course of conduct endangering children | Court: Evidence (drug positives, convictions, family violence, incarcerations) legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment finding |
| Reliance on pleadings form (failure to cite §161.004 explicitly) | Father: DFPS did not plead §161.004 expressly, so no notice they would rely on prior-conduct grounds | DFPS: petitions alleged statutory elements (materially and substantially changed circumstances) even if statute number not recited | Court: Pleadings sufficiently alleged changed circumstances; father failed to specially except → waived objection |
| Challenge to family-services-plan finding | Father: also challenged failure-to-comply finding (alternative ground) | DFPS: termination established by endangerment; best interest finding unchallenged | Court: Because endangerment finding is supported, court need not address services-plan claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional liberty interest requires heightened proof)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (discussing legal/factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576 (Tex.) (termination must be on pleaded grounds)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (definition of endangerment; conduct need not occur in child’s presence)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (drug abuse and its parenting effects as endangering conduct)
- Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (parental crime/drug use and imprisonment can show endangerment)