in the Interest of M.J.P., a Child
05-16-01293-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Father (Lawrence Richard Parker, Jr.) was criminally convicted of continuous sexual abuse of his daughter M.J.P. and sentenced to life imprisonment; the Department sought termination of his parental rights to M.J.P.
- The Department removed M.J.P. after a priority-one referral and a CAC forensic interview in which M.J.P. made an outcry about ongoing sexual abuse by Father.
- A Collin County investigator (Gerald Burk) conducted a recorded interview in which Father confessed to multiple types of sexual conduct with M.J.P., produced drawings showing penetration, and wrote an apology letter; Father later invoked the Fifth Amendment on many trial questions and sometimes denied or minimized the admissions.
- Evidence at the termination trial included the videotaped confession, the apology letter, the drawings, testimony from the Department, CAC clinicians, and a Court Appointed Special Advocate that Father’s conduct caused severe trauma and that M.J.P. did not want contact with him.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence multiple statutory grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (including endangerment under (E)), and that termination was in M.J.P.’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
- On accelerated appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed legal and factual sufficiency challenges and affirmed the termination judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding Father engaged in conduct endangering child under §161.001(b)(1)(E) | Videotaped confession, drawings, apology letter, CAC and investigator testimony show continuous sexual abuse that endangered M.J.P. | Department’s evidence is conclusory; insufficient to prove endangerment. | Affirmed—evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove endangerment. |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest under §161.001(b)(2) | M.J.P. wanted no contact; extensive trauma and ongoing therapy needs; Father incarcerated for life and lacks ability to parent—Holley factors favor termination. | Father disputed sufficiency; claimed inconsistent positions and contested some admissions. | Affirmed—Holley factors support best-interest finding. |
| Whether appellate court must address all predicate grounds when one suffices | Department: one ground plus best-interest suffices for termination. | Father: challenged multiple predicate findings' sufficiency. | Court declined to reach remaining predicate grounds because one predicate (E) sufficed. |
| Whether adverse inferences could be drawn from Father’s Fifth Amendment invocations | Department: trial court could draw negative inferences; father’s silence reinforced probative evidence. | Father relied on privilege; argued invocations undermine probative force. | Held adverse inferences were permissible and considered by the factfinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest requires strict scrutiny)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (factual sufficiency and deference to factfinder in termination appeals)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency standard in termination cases)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive best-interest factors)