in the Interest of I.G., I.G. and I.G., Children
383 S.W.3d 763
Tex. App.2012Background
- Parents David and Sandra had three children; the Department sought termination based on D, E, L, O grounds for Sandra and D, E, O for David; trial evidence included domestic violence, Sandra’s injury to I.G.-2, and noncompliance with court orders; jury found grounds and best interests; court affirmed termination.
- Sandra admitted injuring I.G.-2 and pled guilty to reckless injury; Sandra’s probation included violations.
- David had incidents of domestic violence against Sandra, alcohol issues, and anger management problems; he intended to remain with Sandra.
- Department’s plan was adoption by Blakely if parental rights terminated; Blakely bonded with the children.
- Trial occurred Oct. 31–Nov. 7, 2011; April 23, 2012 judgment terminated rights of both parents; both appealed separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal/factual sufficiency of 161.001(1)(D) and (E) as to David | David argues one DV incident is insufficient | Department asserts endangerment from DV, alcohol, anger | Legally and factually sufficient |
| Best interest finding as to David | David claims strong presumption favors keeping rights | Department shows bond with Blakely and stability of new home | Supported by evidence; termination in best interest |
| Legal/factual sufficiency of 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), (O) as to Sandra | Sandra’s conduct and DV history support grounds | Department theory that Sandra’s acts endanger children | Legally and factually sufficient |
| Best interest finding as to Sandra | Sandra argues presumption favors natural parent | Record shows bond with Blakely and lack of parental fitness | Supported by evidence; termination in best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (constitutional right to parent must be strictly scrutinized in termination)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (both endangerment and best interest must be proven; one ground suffices)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground required if best interest proven)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; reviewing court defers to factfinder)
- May v. May, 829 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1992) (prior conduct informs future risk and best interest)