in the Interest of K.M.-J. AKA K.M-J and D.A.R.-J. v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 01-15-00253-CV

Background

Mother H.J.'s three children were removed after the 3‑year‑old son Jonathan died; the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide by blunt abdominal force.
Hospital records and staff reported multiple unexplained injuries: bruising and abrasions on Jonathan, CT abnormalities on youngest child DJ suggesting prior head trauma, and K.J. diagnosed with a fractured distal right tibia showing extensive callus formation consistent with repeated trauma and untreated for about a month.
Father/stepfather Jorge admitted to “play boxing” or “playfully hitting” Jonathan; he was later indicted for felony murder. H.J. gave inconsistent explanations about the injuries and who caused them at various interviews and at trial.
The Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship (Nov. 2012); a service plan required H.J. to complete tasks (parenting classes, psychological evaluation, stable housing/employment, drug screens, etc.). H.J. completed several basic tasks but testified inconsistently and denied responsibility for the injuries.
At bench trial (Jan. 2014, resumed Oct. 2014), the trial court admitted Texas Children’s Hospital records (Exhibit 17) over H.J.’s objection alleging untimely disclosure; the court ultimately terminated H.J.’s parental rights under Family Code §161.001(1)(E) and found termination was in the children’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (HJ)	Defendant's Argument (DFPS)	Held
Admissibility of Exhibit 17 (medical records/doctor opinions)	Exhibit 17 contained doctors’ opinions not timely disclosed; should be excluded under discovery rules	Objection waived / not sufficiently specific; record doesn’t prove a discovery violation and trial delay cured any prejudice	Admission affirmed: objection waived and no demonstrated entitlement to exclusion
Sufficiency of evidence for predicate ground §161.001(1)(E) (endangerment)	Mother argues evidence insufficient to show she caused or knowingly placed children with persons who endangered them	Department points to homicide ruling, doctors’ findings of repeated/unexplained injuries, father’s admissions, and mother’s inconsistent statements	Finding under §161.001(1)(E) supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence
Sufficiency of evidence that termination is in children’s best interest	Completion of service plan tasks and loving parent–child relationship weigh against termination	DFPS emphasizes continuing risk, untreated injuries, mother’s dishonesty, lack of viable relatives, and foster parents’ willingness to adopt	Court’s best‑interest finding affirmed as supported by Holley factors and placement considerations
Remedy for alleged discovery violation	Exclusion required as sanction for untimely disclosure of expert/doctor opinions	Trial court provided alternative relief (continued trial months later); complaining party never proved prejudice or requested further remedy	Exclusion not required; continuance and eventual admission harmless/no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for appellate review of parental‑termination evidence under clear and convincing burden)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency review under clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (factfinder may disbelieve a parent’s testimony about injuries/knowledge)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for child’s best interest)
Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition and proof of endangerment can be inferred from parental misconduct)
PR Investment and Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. State, 251 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. 2008) (sanctions for discovery violations must be no more severe than necessary)
Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1992) (continuance may cure prejudice from discovery issues)