in the Interest of J.R. and M.D.N.S.T., Children
01-16-00491-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Children John (age 12) and Mary (age 5) were removed from Mother’s care in 2011 for neglect/failure to thrive; the Department became temporary conservator in 2012 and permanent sole managing conservator by an agreed order in April 2014.
- Mother and Father were named possessory conservators; both entered court-ordered family service plans requiring parenting classes, mental-health treatment, stable housing, child support, and consistent contact.
- Mother did not complete any service-plan tasks by the January 2016 court-ordered deadline and had inconsistent visits and no child-support payments; she did not appear or present evidence at trial.
- Father had a history of violent felony assaults (including a 2012 conviction), multiple incarcerations, limited visits with Mary (about 8–10 visits over two years after release), and failed to complete required therapy by the deadline.
- The Department moved to terminate parental rights in May 2016; the trial court terminated Mother’s rights to both children under §§161.001(b)(1)(F), (N), and (O) and Father’s rights to Mary under §§161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), and (O); the court also found termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The court of appeals affirmed: it rejected jurisdictional/mootness and res judicata challenges, held there was a material and substantial change based on parents’ failure to complete plans, and found legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting termination (Subsection O for Mother; Subsection E and best interest for Father).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / mootness | Mother: motion referenced an earlier order and relied on a 2012 affidavit; proceedings therefore moot or jurisdictionally defective | Department: court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction from the April 2014 order; pleadings otherwise identified the case correctly | Court held it had jurisdiction; mistaken references/old affidavit raise evidentiary issues, not jurisdictional defects |
| Requirement of material and substantial change to modify conservatorship | Mother/Father: §156.101 (or §161.004) required a material/substantial change since April 2014 and evidence was insufficient | Department: parents’ failure to complete court-ordered plans by deadline constituted such a change | Court held parents’ failure to complete service plans by the deadline provided legally and factually sufficient evidence of a material and substantial change |
| Sufficiency to terminate Mother under §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with plan) | Mother: evidence legally/factually insufficient; also challenged F and N findings and best-interest finding | Department: caseworker testimony showed Mother completed nothing on plan, had inconsistent visits, unpaid support; children had been in DFPS care long-term | Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under (O); did not reach F and N challenges |
| Sufficiency to terminate Father under §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) and best interest | Father: evidence insufficient to show endangerment, abandonment, or failure to comply; insufficient proof of material change | Department: felony convictions for violent assaults, history of family violence and incarceration, failure to complete services, minimal contact with Mary | Court held Father’s violent criminal history and related course of conduct supported (E); limited involvement and failure to comply supported best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional protection of parental rights and burden of proof requirement)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny and strict construction of termination statutes in favor of parents)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (standards for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases and the clear-and-convincing evidence burden)
- In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (parental rights accorded only to those fit to accept responsibilities)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (parental rights are constitutional interests; best-interest focus of termination proceedings)