in the Interest of J. H., V, a Child
13-16-00511-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Child J.H. V born July 31, 2015; Department filed to terminate father J.H. IV’s parental rights alleging grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1) (including (D) and (E)) and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Multiple incidents of domestic violence between father and mother (J.M.) before and after the child’s birth: arrests for assault/family violence, reported choking, bruising, and an allegation mother was run over while pregnant.
- CPS substantiated physical abuse to another child in the household (E.C.), and a safety plan forbidding appellant’s contact with the children was implemented but not followed.
- On August 27, 2015 deputies observed an altercation where appellant brandished a screwdriver near the mother while children were present; several removals of children followed and J.H. V was placed with a paternal aunt.
- Appellant had intermittent incarceration and poor compliance with his Family Service Plan (anger management, parenting, housing, employment proof); he denied abusing J.M. and contested some factual allegations.
- At bench trial the court found clear-and-convincing evidence of predicate ground (E) (endangerment) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment) | Dept.: Appellant’s ongoing pattern of domestic violence, substantiated child abuse in the home, failure to follow a safety plan, noncompliance with services, and incidents (screwdriver threat with children present) endanger the child | Appellant: No evidence he neglected/abused or endangered J.H. V; alleged misconduct occurred outside the child’s presence; poor service-compliance was due to logistical/service-transfer issues | Court affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(E); because (E) was proven, court did not need to decide (D) |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination involves fundamental constitutional rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required in parental termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing factual sufficiency in termination cases)
- In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review in termination proceedings)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition and scope of "endanger" in termination context)
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (strict scrutiny and clear-and-convincing burden in termination cases)