in the Interest of K.O., A.O., and O.O., Children
488 S.W.3d 829
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Petition filed by the Department to terminate Janna Bravo and Matthew Osler’s parental rights to Kendrick, Anna, and Ophelia.
- Trial court terminated rights based on grounds (1) conduct endangering the children, (2) failure to comply with a court-ordered reunification plan, and (3) termination in the children’s best interests.
- Janna, incarcerated at trial, challenged trial in her absence and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Evidence showed Janna’s drug use and criminal history, and Matthew’s drug use, criminal history, and failure to complete the family service plan; the Department offered a plan for adoption.
- Court applied Holley factors to determine best interests and concluded the termination was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence; Ground O supported termination of Matthew’s rights.
- The court affirmed the termination orders and addressed preservation and ineffective-assistance issues as not preserving error; the case involved a proceed-through termination framework under Tex. Fam. Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Janna preserved error about trial in her absence. | Bravo (Janna) argues trial without her presence violated due process. | Osler (Matthew) is not the same issue; focus is on Janna’s absence; no timely preservation. | No preservation; issues not timely raised; claims overruled. |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to secure presence at trial. | Bravo claims ineffective assistance due to absence at trial. | Counsel’s decisions were strategic; record does not show deficient performance. | No ineffective-assistance claim proven under Strickland standard. |
| Whether the evidence supports termination under Ground O (failure to comply with reunification plan). | Department contends Matthew failed to comply with plan requirements (monthly contact, stable housing, anger management, random drug tests). | Matthew disputes sufficiency of the grounds; argues evidence insufficient to terminate. | Legally and factually sufficient evidence supports Ground O. |
| Whether termination was in the best interests of the children under Holley factors. | Department asserts welfare and stability achieved via foster care adoption; parental plans inadequate. | Parents claim potential for reunification; argues less drastic measures were feasible. | Evidence supports best-interest findings; Holley factors favor termination. |
| Whether Ground E and related grounds independently support termination beyond Ground O. | Department invoked multiple grounds beyond O; argues sufficient grounds overall. | Challenge limited to Ground O; other grounds not contested on appeal. | Multiple grounds supported; termination affirmed on at least one valid ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; heightened due-process review for termination)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (Holley factors guide best-interest inquiry in termination cases)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (parental-rights termination standard; Strickland framework for ineffective assistance)
- In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (preservation and standard for appellate review of termination issues)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) ( Holley factors and best-interest balancing)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard; due-process considerations)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam; standard for reviewing termination evidence)
- In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (strict scrutiny of termination findings in Texarkana)