In the Interest of L.G.R.
498 S.W.3d 195
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Child born 2014 tested positive for marijuana; Mother admitted using marijuana during pregnancy; child had multiple serious medical diagnoses and was medically fragile.
- Department removed the child after parents refused voluntary placement and concerns arose about Mother’s mental health, substance use, and stability; child placed with maternal cousin (foster family).
- Mother signed a Family Service Plan, attended services, and completed some therapy; evaluations raised concerns about her ability to care for the child and recommended supervised visitation.
- Trial evidence included hospital/medical records showing marijuana in the child’s meconium and Mother’s positive urine test, expert psychiatric assessment limited by Mother’s evasive responses, and testimony about the child’s ongoing intensive medical and therapy needs met by the foster family.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(R) (child born addicted to a controlled substance) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; appointed Department as sole managing conservator.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds (born addicted to controlled substance §161.001(b)(1)(R)) | Evidence insufficient because child showed no observable withdrawal; Department needed expert causation testimony | Mother admitted marijuana use during pregnancy and both mother and child tested positive at birth; demonstrable presence in bodily fluids satisfies statutory definition | Affirmed: legally and factually sufficient under §161.001(a) because demonstrable presence in child’s bodily fluids and Mother’s admission support the finding |
| Best interest of the child | Mother argued services completed, clean drug tests, safe home—presumption in favor of parent not rebutted | Child’s extraordinary medical needs, Mother’s erratic behavior, limited comprehension of medical needs, and foster family’s stable, bonding care support termination | Affirmed: evidence supports termination as in child’s best interest (Holley factors considered) |
| Conservatorship appointment of Department | Mother argued error in naming Department as managing conservator | Upon termination of parental rights, Tex. Fam. Code §161.207 requires appointment of Department or suitable adult/agency; evidence supported termination | Affirmed: appointment proper and not an abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and appellate) | Counsel failed to file pleadings, conduct discovery/investigation, object to exhibits, call witnesses, preserve record, and properly appeal | Record does not show deficient performance or prejudice; many alleged failures are unsupported and could reflect strategy; appellate errors were not shown to be prejudicial | Affirmed: ineffective-assistance claims rejected under Strickland/In re M.S. test |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination implicates fundamental parental rights)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are constitutional but not absolute; same evidence may bear on predicate and best-interest findings)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and review standards in termination cases)
- In re J.O.A., 288 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (right to effective counsel in termination proceedings; apply Strickland)
- H.R.M. v. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (deference to factfinder on credibility and demeanor)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)