in the Interest of J.E.M.M & L.A.M.M, Children, 532 S.W.3d 874

Background

Mother (M.L.M.-F.) and Father are parents of Julian (4, autistic) and Lauren (19 months). Father moved out in Dec 2015; Mother suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and had recent medication side effects.
While Father was away, Mother left the children briefly (13 minutes) inside the apartment with her nearly 11‑year‑old son from a prior relationship (Frank) while she used the on‑site laundry.
Lauren suffered a serious head injury and had bite marks; she was hospitalized and the Department removed both children and placed them in foster care.
The Department sought termination of Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (N), and (O); the trial court terminated Mother’s rights and appointed Father sole managing conservator.
On appeal, the Fourteenth Court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency: it reversed termination as to subsections D (endangerment) and N (constructive abandonment) for insufficient evidence, affirmed the subsection O (failure to comply with court orders) finding, but held termination was not proven to be in the children’s best interest and rendered judgment denying termination of Mother’s rights.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly placed/allowed children to remain in endangering conditions)	Mother: leaving children briefly with helpful 10¾‑yr‑old was not knowingly creating an endangering environment; she stayed in the building and returned quickly.	Dept: leaving young children with a 10‑yr‑old (plus child‑bite history and toddler’s propensity to fall) exposed them to injury and mother knew the risk.	Reversed as to D — evidence legally insufficient; no proof Mother consciously disregarded a known danger.
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(N) (constructive abandonment after ≥6 months)	Mother: she visited consistently until court‑ordered visitation was stopped; Dept didn’t prove lack of regular visits or significant contact.	Dept: children were in conservatorship ≥6 months and efforts made; argued lack of regular contact/ability to provide safe environment.	Reversed as to N — evidence legally insufficient on regular visits/significant contact element.
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court orders)	Mother: conceded noncompliance but argued inability/effort defenses under later amended statute (not applicable here).	Dept: Mother failed to complete required services; noncompliance supported termination under the pre‑amendment standard.	Affirmed as to O — evidence was legally and factually sufficient under the standard governing this appeal.
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest	Mother: parental presumption favors keeping children with natural parent; bonded relationship, special needs of Julian, lack of evidence showing termination would improve children’s welfare.	Dept: cited safety/parenting concerns, Mother’s noncompletion of services, Father’s stable placement and completion of his plan.	Reversed for best interest — evidence legally insufficient to form firm conviction that termination served children’s best interest; judgment denying termination of Mother’s rights rendered.

Key Cases Cited

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (recognizing constitutional magnitude of parental rights)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for clear and convincing review in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (defining clear and convincing standard and appellate review)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same‑evidence probative for both predicate and best‑interest findings)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (endangerment defined; parental neglect can be as dangerous as abuse)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best‑interest analysis)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground needed plus best‑interest finding to support termination)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (appointment of sole managing conservator and relation to termination proceedings)