in the Interest of M.C. and T.C., Children, 15-0544

Background

Department filed suit January 2014 seeking termination of parental rights to M.C. (age 8) and T.C. (age 5); bench trial held December 11, 2014; termination order entered same day.
Children lived with maternal grandparents for ~10 months and were in trauma-informed therapy after an incident involving the mother.
Caseworker Jennifer Iruegas (sole witness) testified the Department received a November 2013 referral alleging neglectful supervision, parental substance use, and that the mother, while intoxicated, attempted to slit her throat in front of the children; the father was not present and had been told not to leave the mother unsupervised with the children.
Father moved to Houston during the case, attended most court-ordered visits initially (about 15 of 20), completed parenting class, drug assessment and psychological evaluation, but was unsuccessfully discharged from counseling for noncompliance and had intermittent employment; he ceased visits in Sept. 2014 and did not appear at trial.
Trial court found three statutory grounds for termination (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D), (N), (O)) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Collins)	Held
1) §161.001(1)(D): knowingly placed/allowed children to remain in endangering conditions	Father left children alone with mother despite awareness of her mental health and a safety plan; children witnessed mother harm herself, causing trauma	Hearsay record of mother’s incident was the only evidence; counsel objected and record lacked foundation	Affirmed — evidence (caseworker testimony, safety-plan violation, children’s therapy) supported finding
2) §161.001(1)(N): constructive abandonment (≥6 months without regular visits/significant contact)	Father stopped visiting in Sept. 2014, moved to Houston, ceased contact and failed to maintain stability	Father attended ~15 of 20 ordered visits (≈75%) before visits stopped; argues that is regular/ significant contact	Court did not need to decide N (other grounds sufficient); appellate opinion notes father stopped visiting and found abandonment/supporting facts adequate where reached
3) §161.001(1)(O): failure to comply with court-ordered actions (≥9 months)	Father did not complete required services (individual counseling noncompliance, unstable employment/housing) despite Department’s efforts and authorizations	Argues Department did not prove reasonable efforts/referrals in Houston and that father completed several tasks (parenting, drug assessment, psychological)	Affirmed — record showed service plan, incomplete compliance, and caseworker testimony that Department made reasonable efforts
4) Best interest (§161.001(2))	Children bonded with maternal grandparents; placement stable and intended to lead to permanency; father’s instability and noncompliance weigh against reunification	Father argues minimal evidence on many Holley factors and that grandparents could have been given conservatorship while father retained possessory rights	Affirmed — evidence of children’s attachment to grandparents, therapy needs, father’s noncompliance and instability supported best-interest finding

Key Cases Cited

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same evidence may support statutory ground and best-interest prong)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency in termination appeals)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (strong presumption that parent custody serves child's best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexhaustive Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of "endanger" in termination context)
Liu v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (Family Service Plan role in reunification)