in the Interest of M.A.S. and K.D.S., Minor Children
06-16-00059-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Mother sought termination of Father’s parental rights to two children during divorce proceedings; trial court terminated Father's rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(L) and found termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Ground L authorizes termination when a parent has been convicted or placed on community supervision for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under certain Penal Code sections, including aggravated sexual assault (Tex. Penal Code § 22.021).
- Evidence admitted at the termination hearing included records showing Father was placed on deferred adjudication for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen, a later adjudication of guilt and six-year sentence, and Father’s testimony that the victim was 12 or 13 and Father was 17 when the offense occurred.
- Father conceded the conviction but argued the State did not prove he was criminally responsible for a "serious injury" to the child, relying on In re L.S.R. where the court found no evidence of serious injury to the victim.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child constituted being criminally responsible for serious injury and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 satisfies § 161.001(b)(1)(L) requirement that the parent be criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child | Mother: The aggravated sexual assault of a 12–13-year-old constitutes serious injury; conviction/adjudication records prove the statutory predicate | Father: Conviction alone does not prove he was criminally responsible for a serious injury to the victim; cites In re L.S.R. for the proposition that serious injury must be shown | Court: Evidence legally sufficient; given the offense’s nature and victim’s young age, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief that the conviction establishes criminal responsibility for serious injury under Ground L |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.O., 488 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (no pet.) (discussing heightened clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (same standard for parental-termination proceedings)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof in parental-termination context)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency review framework for termination findings)
- In re L.S.R., 60 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (per curiam) (held no evidence of serious injury in that factual context; Texas Supreme Court denied review but disavowed any suggestion molestation of young child generally does not cause serious injury)