In the Interest of J.L.B. and J.R.B., Children
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7235
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Mother and father jointly appeal termination of parental rights to two children, Samuel (b. Jan 2005) and Joshua (b. Jan 2007) in Gregg County, Texas.
- Trial court found three termination grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(D) and (E) and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Evidence showed extreme unsanitary, unsafe home conditions and use of the children in panhandling with a frequent drug-using household.
- CPS intervened after the boys were found with a family friend; multiple witnesses described filthy living conditions, odors, and fire hazards.
- Children exhibited developmental delays, speech problems, dental neglect, and cocaine exposure; parents admitted cocaine use and had inconsistent engagement in services.
- Court applied Holley factors and other precedents, concluding termination was supported by D/E and in best interests; WV termination (M) not required to address for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency to support §161.001(D) and (E) grounds | Mother and father contend evidence fails for D/E. | State argues evidence shows endangerment and conduct per D/E. | Sufficient evidence supports D/E grounds. |
| Factual sufficiency to support §161.001(D) and (E) | State claims the facts prove endangerment and bad conduct. | Parents argue record conflicts who are credible. | Evidence is factually sufficient to support the findings. |
| Best interests of the children support termination | Termination is in the children's best interests due to needs and safety. | Parents claim potential for improvement with services. | Terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the children. |
| Notice/adequacy of out-of-state termination ground (M) | State must prove WV law provides jury rights and notice on M ground. | Parents challenge notice and jury rights for M ground. | Not necessary to address; sufficient proof exists under D/E and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination; appellate review framework)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (juries; legal and factual sufficiency standards; fact-finder credibility)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) ( Holley-type factors; sufficiency in best interests analysis)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (best interests and nonexclusive Holley factors; termination presumption)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (one ground sufficient if termination is in best interests)
- K.W., 335 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (nonuniform grounds; affirm on any valid ground)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best interests)