in the Interest of L.E.S., a Child
06-15-00015-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 18, 2015Background
- Parents James and Julie had a long-term relationship marked by domestic violence and illicit drug use; James began abusing Julie when she was 16.
- On June 20, 2013, police responded after Julie reported being assaulted by James while their child L.E.S. was in the home; the home was filthy and infested, and the Department became involved.
- In July 2013 drug tests: James positive for methamphetamine and marijuana; Julie positive for marijuana; one-year-old L.E.S. tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Julie initially complied with Department service plans and secured a monitored return of L.E.S., but later violated shelter and court no-contact orders, visited James in jail (a recorded conversation was introduced at trial), and tested positive again for marijuana.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights to L.E.S. under Texas Family Code § 161.001(1), finding grounds under (D), (E), and (O); both parents appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence and admission of the jail recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination of James’ rights under §161.001(1)(E) (endangering conduct) | Department: James’ history of domestic violence, criminal convictions, and illegal drug use created a continuing course of conduct endangering the child | James: Evidence insufficient (challenged legally and factually) | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (E) for James |
| Whether evidence supports termination of Julie’s rights under §161.001(1)(D) (allowing child to remain in dangerous surroundings) | Department: Julie knowingly allowed L.E.S. to remain in environment with domestic violence and drug exposure and failed to protect child | Julie: Completed services, secured monitored return, and argued isolated subsequent missteps don’t justify termination | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (D) for Julie |
| Whether jailhouse audio/video recording of James and Julie was privileged (spousal communications) | Parents: conversation privileged under Tex. R. Evid. 504 and should be excluded | Department: Tex. Fam. Code §261.202 removes privilege in proceedings regarding child abuse/neglect | Affirmed: §261.202 applies; communication not protected and recording admissible |
| Whether error in admission required reversal | Parents: admission prejudiced their case | Department: admissible under Family Code; trial evidence supports termination regardless | Affirmed: admission not error; termination sufficiently supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parents’ fundamental rights in custody decisions)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard and review approach in termination cases)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition and scope of child endangerment)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standards for clear-and-convincing evidence in termination)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (exacting review and consideration of disputed evidence in termination appeals)
- In re N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (drug use and parental conduct as endangerment)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the finding)
- In re W.B.W., 2012 WL 2856067 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012) (applying Fam. Code §261.202 to exclude testimonial privileges in child-abuse proceedings)
(Note: W.B.W. appears in opinion as an appellate decision relied on for statutory application.)