in the Interest of M.L.H., a Child
13-22-00004-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- Child (M.L.H.) born 2013; parents Aaron and Amber separated in 2014; Aaron had sporadic visits through early 2015 and essentially no contact afterward.
- May 2015 default SAPCR judgment appointed Amber sole managing conservator and Aaron possessory conservator; visitation was "supervised at Amber's discretion."
- Office of the Attorney General filed enforcement in 2017 for support arrearages; Aaron subsequently paid and had a credit by trial.
- August 2020: Amber petitioned to terminate Aaron’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(A) and (C) (abandonment grounds) and sought to change the child’s surname and remove Aaron from the birth certificate.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds (A) and (C), concluded termination was in the child’s best interest, terminated the parent‑child relationship, named Amber sole managing conservator, changed the child’s surname, and removed Aaron from the birth certificate.
- Court of Appeals reversed as to termination and birth‑certificate modification, sustained Aaron’s challenges to grounds (A) and (C) (insufficient evidence), vacated Amber’s appointment as sole managing conservator, and remanded for proceedings under §161.205.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amber) | Defendant's Argument (Aaron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(A) (left child with non‑parent & expressed intent not to return) | Amber argued Aaron abandoned the child and expressed intent not to return. | Aaron asserted he never left the child with a non‑parent — the child always lived with Amber. | Reversed — evidence legally insufficient because (A) requires leaving the child with someone other than a parent. |
| 2. Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(C) (left child without adequate support and remained away ≥6 consecutive months) | Amber argued Aaron failed to provide adequate support and remained away for the requisite six‑month period. | Aaron argued the May 2015 default SAPCR order gave Amber residence and he did not voluntarily leave the child for six consecutive months; visits in Jan–Feb 2015 defeat a six‑month absence. | Reversed — evidence legally insufficient because Amber failed to prove a six‑month consecutive period of voluntary absence and lack of adequate support pre‑dating the conservatorship order. |
| 3. Whether trial court could terminate solely on best interest | Amber maintained termination was also in the child’s best interest. | Aaron argued termination cannot rest on best interest alone without a predicate ground. | Not reached substantively; because predicate grounds failed, court could not uphold termination solely on best interest and termination was vacated. |
| 4. Change of surname and removal from birth certificate | Amber requested name change and removal as father as part of termination relief. | Aaron argued the court lacked an independent basis to change the child’s name or remove him from the birth certificate after reversal of termination. | Reversed — appellate court vacated the birth‑certificate/name changes and Amber’s sole managing‑conservator appointment and remanded for §161.205 proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (involuntary termination implicates fundamental rights; predicate (C) concerns arranging for adequate support)
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (defines the clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (termination proceedings require strict scrutiny)
- In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018) (legal‑sufficiency standard for termination findings)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (consider undisputed evidence and factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
- Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (characterizes abandonment grounds and explains six consecutive months requirement)