in the Interest of J.W., M.S., O.S., T.S., and K.S., Children
10-15-00195-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- William W. appealed the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to two children, J.W. and T.S.; mother voluntarily relinquished rights to five children.
- William was incarcerated (convictions for arson and injury to a child) with an expected release in 2042.
- The children had been in their current foster/placement for ~3 years; permanency goal was adoption by current caregivers.
- The Department provided William a service plan; the trial court found he did not complete required services.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that William (1) constructively abandoned the children under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(N) and (2) failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan under § 161.001(1)(O), and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence for § 161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered actions) | Dept.: service plan existed and William failed to complete required services | William: § 161.001(1)(O) inapplicable because children were not "removed from him" (he was incarcerated) and no actual court order was admitted into evidence | Court: Held evidence sufficient; (O) does not require the parent who failed to comply be the same parent whose conduct caused removal; service-plan/order treated as in evidence by parties |
| Factual sufficiency of evidence for § 161.001(1)(O) | Dept.: caseworker testimony and clerk’s record of order show noncompliance | William: challenges weight/credibility and absence of an admitted order | Court: Evidence was factually sufficient; overrules challenge |
| Best interest of the children | Dept.: children stable in placement; needs met; placement seeks adoption; termination necessary for permanence | William: (implicitly) retained parental rights despite incarceration; no evidence he can meet future needs | Court: Held termination is in children’s best interest given long-term placement, lack of parental involvement, and William’s incarceration |
| Need to address constructively abandonment under § 161.001(1)(N) separately | Dept.: additional predicate ground exists | William: contested grounds overall | Court: Found (O) sufficient as single predicate (did not reach (N) issue further) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate necessary plus best-interest finding for termination)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard in parental-termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard and reviewing courts’ role)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence review)
- In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (subsection (O) does not require the same parent to have caused removal)
- In re A.G.C., 279 S.W.3d 441 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (parties treating documents as evidence waives complaint on appeal)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for child’s best interest)
- In re S.L., 421 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.App.–Waco 2013) (emphasis on stability and permanence in best-interest analysis)