in the Interest of K.S.L., a Child, 499 S.W.3d 109

Mother and Father executed unrevoked, irrevocable affidavits of voluntary relinquishment acknowledging termination was in the child’s best interest and designating the Department as managing conservator.
At the termination trial the court took judicial notice of the affidavits; the only live testimony was a Department caseworker’s brief, conclusory statement that relinquishment and termination were in the child’s best interest and that the child was placed with a paternal uncle.
The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(K) based on the affidavits and also found termination was in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
On appeal parents did not contest the statutory ground (the affidavits) but challenged sufficiency of the evidence to support the best-interest finding.
The Department relied on the affidavits and other documents in the clerk’s file; the majority held those documents (and unadmitted file material) cannot substitute for clear-and-convincing evidence admitted at trial.
The court reversed the termination as to best interest (rendered judgment denying termination) but affirmed the Department’s appointment as managing conservator under § 153.131.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports finding termination is in the child’s best interest when parents signed unrevoked affidavits of relinquishment	Affidavits (and other file documents) are sufficient; §161.211(c) limits appellate review to fraud/duress/coercion so best-interest challenge is barred	Affidavits are relevant but not dispositive; State still must prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence and trial evidence here was only conclusory testimony	Reversed termination for lack of clear-and-convincing proof of best interest; affidavits relevant but insufficient alone; §161.211(c) does not preclude review of best-interest evidence

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in termination cases)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping child with parent is in child’s best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same evidence may support statutory grounds and best-interest analysis but State still must prove best interest)
In re A.H., 414 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (affidavit of relinquishment is relevant but not dispositive; conclusory caseworker testimony insufficient)
In re K.D., 471 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015) (MSA and affidavit do not eliminate State’s burden to prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
Brown v. McLennan Cnty. Children’s Protective Servs., 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982) (discussing legislative intent regarding voluntary relinquishment)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (noting heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings)