in the Interest of I. J. P., a Child, 04-18-00296-CV

Background

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights after newborn I.J.P. and Mother tested positive for methamphetamine at birth; Mother admitted use during pregnancy and identified Father as the biological parent (paternity later confirmed).
The Department placed the child with foster parents who were described as strongly bonded with I.J.P.; Department’s long-term goal was non-relative adoption by the foster parents.
Bench trial occurred Feb 12, 2018 (child ~13 months). Judge’s notes initially indicated intent to terminate Mother and to order a monitored return to Father; foster parents moved for rehearing to present Father’s recent criminal history and the trial court reopened evidence and heard additional testimony March 28, 2018.
Trial court found three statutory grounds to terminate Mother (failure to comply with court order; parental drug use endangering child and related treatment issues; causing child to be born addicted) and one ground as to Father (failure to comply with court order), and found termination of both parents was in the child’s best interest.
Evidence at trial: Mother failed to complete court-ordered services, had intermittent contact with the Department, tested positive for drugs during the case, but had engaged in a residential program (Guadalupe Home). Father showed some recent progress but had not completed his service plan, had unstable housing/employment history, refused UAs on several occasions, and had limited recent engagement with therapy; paternal family offered some support but trial court had concerns about reliability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports termination as to Mother (best interest)	Dept: Mother’s drug use during pregnancy, child withdrawal, noncompliance with services, continued positive tests support best-interest finding	Mother: Engaged in Guadalupe Home program, gave birth to another child and showed some progress; evidence insufficient for termination	Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to find termination in child’s best interest
Whether trial court erred by granting intervenors’ motion for rehearing to admit additional evidence	Intervenors: Rehearing necessary to present recent criminal-history evidence relevant to Father’s fitness	Father: Reopening evidence after bench trial was improper	Held: Father failed to preserve complaint by not objecting at trial; no reversible error in reopening evidence
Whether evidence supports termination as to Father (best interest)	Dept: Father failed to complete services, had unstable housing/employment, refused drug testing, limited engagement with therapy—supports best-interest finding	Father: Testimony of counselor and family about progress and recent stabilization of housing/employment; disputed significance of past instability	Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to find termination in child’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination requires proof of predicate ground and best interest)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual-sufficiency review in parental-termination appeals)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for termination evidence)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same evidence can support both predicate grounds and best-interest finding)
In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (best-interest may consider circumstantial and subjective evidence and totality of evidence)
In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (appellate court need not detail evidence when affirming termination)
In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (mother’s prenatal drug use weighs in favor of termination)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan supports best-interest determination)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (short-lived improvement does not negate evidence of prior instability)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)