in the Interest of K.F., K.A.F., R.S.H., and R.G.H.Jr., Children, 402 S.W.3d 497

Background

The Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Services removed four children from Alana Harrison after repeated domestic-violence incidents in 2011 involving Harrison and Robert Havies, including an incident where Havies put a gun to Harrison’s head in front of the children.
One child, K.F., made an outcry alleging sexual abuse by Havies; Harrison was skeptical and did not timely engage in recommended sexual-abuse-related services.
Harrison tested positive for cocaine in August 2011 and missed several drug tests; she completed some services (parenting, some counseling) but failed to complete individual and family therapy and other court-ordered services before trial.
Caseworkers reported Harrison was evasive, intermittently unreachable, had unstable employment and living arrangements, and left the youngest child in the care of a maternal grandmother with a problematic history.
The trial court terminated Harrison’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (F), (O) and (2) (best interest). Harrison appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence supporting those findings, and challenging judicial notice of the family service plan/order.

Issues

Issue	Harrison's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered plan) because no court order was admitted at trial	No admissible court order specifically establishing required actions was proven; thus §161.001(O) cannot support termination	Trial court may judicially notice its own file; the family-service-order exists in the court record and can be presumed noticed	Court presumed judicial notice of its own records and held evidence legally and factually sufficient for (O) — issue overruled
Whether evidence legally/factually insufficient to terminate under §161.001(1)(D), (E), (F) (endangerment, placing with endangering persons, failure to support)	Harrison claimed insufficiency of evidence for these statutory grounds	Department relied on domestic violence in children’s presence, sexual-abuse outcry, substance use, missed services and instability	Court declined to address (D),(E),(F) after finding (O) sufficient; those issues were unnecessary to resolve
Whether termination is contrary to children’s best interests	Harrison argued she can provide stable home, services incomplete due to Department/therapist issues, and some witnesses praised her parenting	Department pointed to ongoing danger, lack of bonding to three children, instability, uncompleted services, and good outcomes in current placements	Court found legally and factually sufficient evidence that termination is in each child’s best interest; Harrison’s fourth issue overruled
Procedural: whether Hood/Rule 201 required the trial court to announce judicial notice and give parties opportunity to be heard	Harrison relied on Hood/Rule 201 — trial court should have announced judicial notice and allowed challenge	Court distinguished Hood (which barred noticing another court’s records) and held a court may presume notice of its own file; Rule 201(e) inapplicable to noticing the existence of a document	Court held Hood and Rule 201(e) do not prevent presuming notice of the court’s own records; no reversal required

Key Cases Cited

In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (standard for termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency standards in parental-termination appeals)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing evidence definition for termination)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors for child custody/termination analysis)
Nat’l Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hood, 693 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ) (limits on judicially noticing records of another court)
In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (presumption favoring parent; burden on petitioner to rebut)