in the Interest of J.N., M.N., and M.N., Children, 10-16-00234-CV

Background

Trial court terminated father’s parental rights to three children after bench trial; mother’s rights also terminated but she did not appeal. Father was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment.
CPS investigation arose after twin infants (M.N. and N.M.) were severely ill with brain hemorrhages and repeated head trauma; one twin (M.N.) suffered catastrophic brain injury.
Evidence included hospital findings (bleeding to the brain), CPS investigator testimony, an older child (K.V.) reporting he saw the father shake a child, and recorded jail calls in which the father admitted shaking the infants.
Law enforcement charged and prosecuted the father; Detective Yocham testified and jail-call recordings and the criminal judgment were admitted; jury convicted father of injury to a child.
DFPS witness testified father completed many services while on bond but recommended termination; foster placements were meeting the children’s needs and adoption was the agency’s plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly placed/allowed child to remain in endangering conditions)	Evidence shows father’s repeated shaking and hospital findings support endangerment.	Father argues evidence didn’t prove he caused injuries; no medical expert testified and other caregivers weren’t adequately investigated.	Court held evidence (admissions, K.V.’s statement, hospital findings) legally and factually sufficient to prove (D).
Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (engaged in conduct or placed child with persons who engaged in endangering conduct)	Agency argued father’s conduct (shaking) and pattern of conduct supports (E).	Father argued lack of proof tying him to the injuries beyond criminal trial evidence.	Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove (E).
Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(L) (criminal conviction)	Agency relied on conviction and other evidence; but only one predicate ground required.	Father argued criminal conviction was on appeal and records/recordings were unreliable.	Court declined to reach (L) because (D)/(E) were proven; also held courts may consider nonfinal convictions in termination cases.
Best interest of the children	Agency: father’s admissions, injuries, and incarceration make return not in children’s best interest; permanency via adoption preferred.	Father: completed services while on bond; grandmother proposed placement and disputed admissions.	Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in the children’s best interest (Holley factors, permanence, safety).

Key Cases Cited

Swate v. Swate, 72 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002) (DFPS burden requires clear and convincing proof of predicate and best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment may be inferred from parental misconduct)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of endangerment)
Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (analysis of §161.001(b)(1)(D) endangerment and parental conduct)
In re T.T.F., 331 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (discussion of §161.001(b)(1)(E) and deliberate course of conduct)
In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (E requires a voluntary, deliberate course of conduct)