in the Interest of L.G. Children, 04-17-00526-CV

Department filed petition to terminate Christy G.’s parental rights to five children on March 3, 2016; multiple attorneys ad litem were appointed and replaced during proceedings.
Mediation was court-ordered for May 15, 2017; Christy did not attend. The mediation order warned contempt sanctions were available.
Trial court later struck Christy’s timely jury demand as a sanction for failing to attend the mediation; Christy asserted she missed mediation due to hospitalization and lacked notice.
Trial proceeded to a bench trial after the jury demand was stricken; at trial the court admitted testimony about Christy’s drug use, failure to complete services, erratic behavior, terminated visits, and children’s improved condition in placement.
The trial court terminated Christy’s parental rights; she appealed contending (1) the jury strike was an improper sanction and (2) evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support best-interest finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly struck Christy’s jury demand as a sanction for missing court-ordered mediation	Department: local rules permit sanctions for missing mediation; striking the jury demand was appropriate to sanction noncompliance	Christy: she was hospitalized or lacked notice of the mediation; striking a constitutionally protected jury right was disproportionate and less restrictive sanctions (e.g., contempt) were available	Reversed for this ground: court abused its discretion; no adequate nexus shown between missed mediation and denial of jury trial and court failed to consider lesser sanctions
Whether evidence supports termination as being in the children’s best interest	Department: evidence of prenatal marijuana use, ongoing drug use, failure to complete service plan, inability to provide for children, emotional harm to children, and improvement in placement support best-interest finding	Christy: challenges sufficiency of the evidence and factual findings supporting termination	Court concluded legally sufficient evidence supported best-interest finding but reversal was required due to jury-strike error; termination order reversed and case remanded for further proceedings

Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (standard for abuse of discretion in imposing sanctions)
TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must fit the misconduct; consider lesser sanctions)
In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (parental termination requires strict scrutiny of procedures implicating constitutional rights)
Halsell v. Dehoyos, 810 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. 1991) (timeliness and harm analysis for jury demand issues)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (standards for proving parental termination: clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds and best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for evaluating child’s best interest)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency standard in parental-termination cases)
In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2016) (parent drug use supports best-interest finding)
In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (children’s improvement in foster care supports best-interest finding)