in the Interest of M.M., D.L., J.L., N.L., and D.L., Children, 02-21-00153-CV

Background

Five children were removed in Sept. 2019 after allegations of physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse; three older children had significant trauma and two younger boys had severe developmental delays.
The Department sought termination; at a bench trial on May 7, 2021, Mother and Father executed irrevocable affidavits relinquishing parental rights that were bench-filed the same day.
Department witness (OCOK permanency specialist) and the guardian ad litem supported termination and described the children’s therapeutic and adoptive needs.
The Department agreed (and the termination order provided) limited post-termination contact: a one-time Zoom goodbye if criminal bond conditions allowed and monthly photos/brief updates while it served as permanent managing conservator.
Father’s appellate challenge relied on an earlier case-history statement in the Department’s petition indicating Father had been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability; Father did not raise that diagnosis at trial, did not object to the affidavits, and his trial counsel asked the court to accept the relinquishment.
The trial court found (by clear and convincing evidence) the affidavits were unrevoked/irrevocable and termination was in the children’s best interest; Father appealed four issues and Mother’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence that Father executed an unrevoked/irrevocable affidavit	Evidence did not support voluntariness of the affidavit	Affidavit complied with §161.103 and is prima facie valid; burden shifted to Father to show fraud/duress/coercion	Court: Evidence sufficient; Father failed to prove fraud/duress/coercion; overruled
2. Trial court unaware of Father’s intellectual disability affecting capacity to sign	Father lacked capacity due to mild intellectual disability (not called to trial court’s attention)	Father did not notify trial court or present evidence of how disability affected capacity; counsel represented Father understood the affidavit	Court: Even if diagnosis was a judicial admission, Father didn’t alert trial court or present evidence of incapacity; overruled
3. Affidavit was obtained in exchange for post‑termination contact (photos/updates)	Father signed in exchange for Department’s promise of updates/photos (coercion/duress)	Department witness clarified promises were not conditioned on relinquishment; counsel likewise said nothing promised in exchange	Court: Evidence shows post‑termination contact was not conditioned on relinquishment; no coercion; overruled
4. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel was ineffective for not informing court of Father’s disability and not objecting to leading questions	Counsel reasonably concluded Father understood affidavit, discussed it at length, and strategically asked court to accept relinquishment; record does not show deficient performance or prejudice	Court: Strong deference to counsel; performance not shown to be deficient; overruled

Key Cases Cited

In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (standard that termination requires clear and convincing evidence of statutory ground and best interest)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review in termination cases requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the finding)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard and best-interest considerations in termination appeals)
In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (affidavit of relinquishment must be voluntarily executed—knowingly and intelligently)
In re M.M., 538 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2017) (limitations on direct attacks to relinquishment judgments; relevance of §161.211(c))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (parental-rights termination and ineffective-assistance standards)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (right to effective counsel in termination proceedings)