in the Interest of L.N.C & K.N.M., Children
573 S.W.3d 309
| Tex. App. | 2019Background
- Father's parental rights to daughter (Laura) were terminated after a bench trial while he was incarcerated; Father appealed.
- Father was serving a 2017 two-year sentence for second-degree assault; he has a history of convictions over the prior decade.
- The Department removed Laura and her half-brother Kevin due to neglect and domestic violence; children were placed with foster parents and later considered for placement with a relative (Karen) and paternal grandparents.
- Father completed a family service plan (FSP) while incarcerated, maintained monthly contact by mail, obtained a GED, and requested placement with paternal grandparents (approved home study).
- At trial the court had issued a bench warrant to bring Father to court, but Sheriff’s Office did not deliver him; trial counsel orally requested a continuance which the trial court denied and did not permit alternative participation (affidavit, phone, deposition).
- The court found clear-and-convincing evidence that termination was in Laura’s best interest and terminated Father’s rights; the court of appeals affirmed the best-interest finding but reversed and remanded on due-process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of continuance after bench warrant (Due process) | Father: denial deprived him of meaningful participation and due process because he was timely bench-warranted but not delivered | Department: oral motion insufficient under Tex. R. Civ. P. 251; no facts shown that presence was necessary | Court: Sustained. Father denied procedural due process; reversal and remand for new trial. |
| 2. Factual sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) | Father: evidence was factually insufficient to support endangerment predicate | Department: evidence supported endangerment findings | Court: Not reached on appeal because reversal would not grant greater relief; not addressed. |
| 3. Legal/factual sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(N) (constructive abandonment) | Father: evidence legally and factually insufficient | Department: evidence sufficient | Court: Not reached on appeal because Father did not press legal-insufficiency claim that would afford greater relief. |
| 4. Legal sufficiency of best-interest finding (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(2)) | Father: termination was not in Laura’s best interest | Department: Holley factors and evidence support best-interest finding | Court: Overruled in part — court found legally sufficient evidence supported best-interest, but judgment reversed on due-process ground and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (establishment of heightened standard for parental-rights termination)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (matters to consider in procedural due-process balancing)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Texas standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in termination cases)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (one predicate finding plus best interest required for termination)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (strict scrutiny of termination statutes)
- In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (factors for deciding whether to transport incarcerated litigant for civil trial)