in the Interest of L.L.-M.C. AKA L.C., a Child
01-21-00233-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 21, 2021Background
- Leah (born 2019) was removed after police found heroin, needles, and methamphetamine paraphernalia in the home; father was arrested on a felony drug possession charge.
- Department of Family & Protective Services was appointed temporary managing conservator (April 8, 2020); a court‑approved family services plan for the father was entered June 18, 2020.
- The plan required housing/employment verification, psychosocial and substance‑abuse assessments (with random testing), parenting classes, monthly contact with the Department, attendance at hearings, and visits with Leah.
- At trial (March 31, 2021) the caseworker testified the father only completed a paternity test and attended some hearings; he did not complete substance testing, assessments, parenting classes, provide proof of stability, or have visits. He was incarcerated at times and did not cooperate with the investigator or CASA.
- CASA and foster‑care testimony described Leah as thriving in her foster placement; the foster mother was willing to adopt.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), and found termination was in Leah’s best interest; the father appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence for the predicate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court‑ordered services) | Dept: father was served, attended hearings, knew/understood the plan, but failed to complete required tasks | Father: insufficient proof he received/understood the plan; statutory defense under §161.001(d) (unable in good faith to comply) applies | Affirmed — legally and factually sufficient; father failed to prove the affirmative defense |
| Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering environment) | Dept: drugs in home and parents were active users, creating an endangering environment | Father: removal allegations are conclusory; complained of hearsay and unidentified criminal judgments | Affirmed — evidence (including unobjected testimony and service plan) sufficient; any evidentiary errors were harmless |
| Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (parental course of conduct) | Dept: father’s criminal history, substance abuse, incarceration, and failure to engage in services showed a voluntary course of conduct endangering the child | Father: contested use/identification of convictions and primarily relied on criminal history | Affirmed — record supported endangerment under (E); convictions and other evidence sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate and best‑interest finding are required to terminate parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear‑and‑convincing standard required in parental‑termination proceedings)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition and scope of "endanger" in termination context)
- In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (due‑process requirement to address endangerment findings on appeal)
- Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)