In the Interest of J.D.B., a Child
435 S.W.3d 452
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- J.D.B. (born May 31, 2012) sustained numerous fractures while in the care of Mother and Father in Texas, prompting CPS involvement.
- Skeletal surveys and extensive testing ruled out underlying bone disease or rickets as explanations for the fractures; multiple physicians concluded the injuries were non-accidental.
- J.D.B. was removed from parental care and placed with a foster family; the Department filed for conservatorship and termination of parental rights.
- Duane, Mother's step-grandfather, provided stable placement and testified adoption by him would be in J.D.B.’s best interest; J.D.B. showed no new fractures after removal.
- Mother and Father underwent counseling and parenting classes; experts diverged about whether J.D.B.’s fractures were due to abuse or a medical condition.
- The jury found that Mother and Father knowingly endangered J.D.B. and that termination was in his best interest; the trial court terminated parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangerment under §161.001(1)(D). | Harrell and Bonham endangered J.D.B. by environment and conduct. | No knowledge of abuse and no medical explanation; injuries could be due to bone disease. | Evidence sufficient; endangerment proven under (D). |
| Whether there is legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangerment under §161.001(1)(E). | Harmful conduct or placement with others endangered the child. | No intentional misconduct established; medical explanations negate endangerment. | Not addressed on appeal; holding not stated. |
| Whether termination is in J.D.B.’s best interest under Holley factors. | Continued care with parents would risk future harm; stability with relatives preferable. | Parents can remedy issues; Duane’s care not necessarily best long-term plan. | Termination in best interest was legally and factually supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (clear and convincing standard for termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (review standard for termination; credibility of witnesses)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (higher burden; appellate deference to fact-finder)
- Castaneda v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 148 S.W.3d 509 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004) (endangerment defined; environment includes home conduct)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (single predicate finding suffices with best interest finding)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (credibility and demeanor are for the fact-finder)
- In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (environmental endangerment and parental culpability)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors guidance in best-interest review)