in the Interest of J.R.W., Children, 05-15-00493-CV

Dallas County CPS removed two children after an incident where Mother was intoxicated and a child was wandering on public transit; CPS became temporary managing conservator.
Trial court ordered services for both parents; neither parent completed required services.
Parents signed a mediated settlement agreeing to termination of their parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(O), CPS as permanent managing conservator, and placement/adoption by a relative (W.H.), with limited supervised visitation.
Father testified he understood and agreed to the mediated settlement, including that termination was in the children’s best interest, and was represented by counsel at mediation.
Trial court entered judgment terminating Father’s parental rights; Father appealed raising six issues including statutory sufficiency, best-interest sufficiency, ineffective assistance of counsel, and appointment of CPS as managing conservator.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment in all respects.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Termination under §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered actions after child removal)	Insufficient evidence because children were removed from Mother, not from Father	CPS removed the children (thereby removing them from both parents when CPS became TMC); Father also agreed to termination in mediated settlement	Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient; removal encompasses both parents and Father consented
Best interest of the children	Insufficient evidence to show termination served children’s best interest	Mediated agreement, home study, placement with relative, and Father’s own agreement/support show stability and plans favoring termination	Affirmed: evidence met clear-and-convincing standard under Holley factors
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to advise that §161.001(1)(O) required removal from Father and failed to comply with pretrial order (witness/exhibit lists)	Any alleged advice was not shown to be incorrect; Father failed to prove prejudice or that different counsel conduct would have changed outcome	Affirmed: Father failed Strickland/Strickland-like showing of deficient performance and prejudice
Appointment of CPS as managing conservator	Insufficient evidence to appoint CPS	Issue depends on termination; termination affirmed	Not addressed on merits because termination affirmed

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and Holley factors do not require proof of every factor)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (factual-sufficiency standard when disputed evidence cannot be reasonably credited)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (applying Holley framework in termination context)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (statutory right to appointed counsel in termination suits includes effective assistance standard)
In re L.C.W., 411 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (prejudice requirement in ineffective assistance claims in parental-rights cases)