in the Interest of J.D.P., a Child
11-15-00148-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 17, 2015Background
- Baby J.D.P. was removed from her parents at birth and placed in foster care; she has lived with the same foster-to-adopt family since release from the hospital.
- The Department previously removed older children due to serious domestic violence by the father; parents’ rights to those children were terminated.
- The trial court ordered the father to complete services (batterer’s program, assessments, counseling, housing, etc.) as conditions for reunification.
- The father failed to complete several required services, did not obtain stable housing, and exhibited conduct (confrontation, social-media posts) suggesting continued risk.
- The Department recommended termination; the trial court found termination grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (O) and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- The father appealed, challenging legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the best-interest finding; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered steps after child removed for abuse/neglect) | Dept.: Father failed to comply with court-ordered services; child removed due to abuse/neglect (including risk from prior removals); Dept. met clear-and-convincing standard. | Father: J.D.P. herself was not shown to have been abused or neglected, so (O) cannot apply. | Affirmed: (O) satisfied; abuse/neglect includes risks from environment/other children’s harm per controlling precedent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangerment conditions/surroundings) | Dept.: Father’s conduct and living conditions endangered child. | Father: Challenges sufficiency. | Not reached: Court found (O) sufficient alone; (D) need not be decided. |
| Best interest of the child | Dept.: Child is thriving in foster-to-adopt placement, bonded with foster parents; parents haven’t remedied risks; termination is in child’s best interest. | Father: Challenges sufficiency of best-interest evidence. | Affirmed: Holley factors and record support clear-and-convincing finding that termination is in child’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard in parental-termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard and deference in termination cases)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for evaluating child’s best interest)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (interpreting “abuse or neglect” in §161.001(b)(1)(O) to include risks to other children/parental environment)
- In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (application of (O) where removal related to risk from prior conduct)
- In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (use of Holley factors; best-interest analysis)