in the Interest of K.D., a Minor Child, 471 S.W.3d 147

Dept. filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to 14-year-old K.D.; Mother signed a temporary-consent form and later (Dec. 30, 2014) executed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) and an irrevocable affidavit of voluntary relinquishment (Affidavit) consenting that termination was in K.D.’s best interest.
Prior to mediation, Department representatives and K.D.’s ad litem told Mother at a permanency hearing that K.D. was happy in her aunt’s kinship placement, making good grades, and receiving counseling.
Days after mediation K.D. ran away, disclosed an apparent pregnancy and associations with concerning persons; Mother discovered some of the pre-mediation representations were inaccurate and moved to set aside the MSA and Affidavit alleging fraud.
Trial court found no fraud by the Department and entered judgment terminating Mother’s rights based on the Affidavit and MSA; it also found termination was in K.D.’s best interest.
On appeal, the court held the Affidavit was valid and not procured by fraud, declined to decide whether fraud is a defense to an MSA under §153.0071(e) (because the fraud facts failed), but reversed the best-interest finding as factually insufficient and remanded for a new hearing on best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
1) Was the Affidavit voluntarily executed / procured by fraud?	Mother: she relied on false representations about K.D.’s well-being and placement, so the Affidavit was induced by fraud.	Dept.: statements at hearing/mediation reflected information received from K.D. and aunt; no knowing or reckless misrepresentations.	Held: Affidavit was not procured by fraud; Mother failed to prove fraud by preponderance.
2) Is fraud a defense to enforcement of an MSA under §153.0071(e)?	Mother: MSA was induced by the same alleged fraud and should be set aside.	Dept.: §153.0071(e) entitles parties to judgment on a compliance MSA; but court noted exceptions for illegal/fraudulent agreements in other contexts.	Held: Court declined to decide the general question; MSA upheld here because fraud against the Affidavit was not shown.
3) Was the evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in child’s best interest?	Mother: evidence did not establish danger or incapacity; Holley factors weigh against termination; factual record was undeveloped due to mediation privilege.	Dept.: conflict, runaway, pregnancy, unstable placements, mother’s conduct (e.g., hostile texts), and the Affidavit support termination.	Held: Evidence was legally sufficient but factually insufficient to establish best interest by clear and convincing evidence; remanded for new hearing.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires clear-and-convincing proof before involuntary parental termination)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental liberty interests and limits on state interference)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for child’s best interest)
Brown v. McLennan County Children’s Protective Servs., 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982) (executed affidavit of relinquishment is strong evidentiary support for termination)
Stubbs v. Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1985) (discussion of affidavits/records in family cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (MSA enforcement principles in family-code mediation context)
Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1976) (distinction between modification/possession suits and termination actions)