in the Interest of M.S., a Child
11-17-00201-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Infant M.S. was hospitalized for seizures; nurses observed poor hygiene, improper feeding, a UTI, and roach infestation on bottles and clothing.
- Parents improperly prepared formula (over-diluting) and propped bottles despite medical warnings that those practices risked seizures, brain damage, or death.
- Home visits revealed severe unsanitary conditions: cat/dog feces and urine, mold, roaches, fleas, and pervasive filth; one worker called it among the worst she had seen.
- Concerns existed about the father’s mental health and sexual history (admitted past sexual abuse; parents admitted father watched porn while bathing the child; another household member had a history of sexual abuse).
- M.S. was placed with a paternal relative who sought to adopt; the child bonded with the placement and was reported healthy and thriving.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; parents appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for (D): allowing child to remain in endangering conditions | Department: home and hospital conditions endangered M.S.’s physical and emotional well-being | Parents: evidence legally/factually insufficient to show endangerment | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient; (D) upheld |
| Sufficiency for (E): parental conduct endangered child | Department: parents’ conduct (improper feeding, unsanitary home, sexual concerns) directly endangered child | Parents: single acts or insufficient course of conduct to support (E) | Court: Conduct showed a voluntary, conscious course causing endangerment; (E) upheld |
| Sufficiency for (O): failure to comply with court-ordered service plan for 9+ months | Department: parents failed to fully comply with service plan required for return | Parents: partial compliance and recent improvements undermine (O) finding | Court: Parents did not fully comply; (O) statutory ground satisfied |
| Best interest of the child | Department: Holley factors favor termination—child’s needs, danger, stability with placement, placement’s intent to adopt | Parents: love child and recent home improvements support return | Court: Considering Holley factors, evidence supports that termination is in M.S.’s best interest; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal sufficiency in parental-rights termination)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for factual sufficiency and deference in termination appeals)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (environmental endangerment under §161.001(b)(1)(D))
- In re D.O., 338 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011) (parental conduct as direct cause of endangerment under (E))
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (offending conduct need not be directed at child nor require actual injury)
- In re K.M.M., 993 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1999) (course of conduct required for (E))
- In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (Holley factors applied in termination context)