in the Interest of N.T., a Child
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9407
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (S.T.) previously had parental rights to N.T. (born ~2003) and M.T. (born ~2005); Department removed children after reports of unsanitary/unsafe conditions and Mother’s diagnosed bipolar and schizophrenic disorders.
- Children were placed with maternal aunt S.C.; in 2012 Department removed them from S.C. after discovering S.C. physically abused M.T.; Department then sought conservatorship and termination if reunification failed.
- A 2013 bench termination of Mother’s rights was reversed on appeal for ineffective assistance; new jury trial occurred in Feb. 2015 with extensive evidence about Mother’s mental-health hospitalizations, intermittent medication compliance, and drug-use history (positive hair/toenail tests for cocaine and marijuana).
- Service providers and facility staff testified that N.T. and M.T. have severe special needs (PTSD/behavioral issues and autism with significant supervision needs), that Mother had been observed aggressive with the children, and that reunification posed safety risks.
- Jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, Mother committed grounds under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1) (D), (E), and (P) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; trial court appointed the Department permanent managing conservator.
- Mother appealed arguing legal and factual insufficiency as to the predicate grounds, best interest, and the Department’s conservatorship; the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the challenged issues and upheld appointment of the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(D) (allowed children to remain in dangerous surroundings) | Mother argued no proof she actually knew S.C. would abuse the children and Department’s later approval of placement undermines endangerment claim | Evidence showed Mother left children with S.C. despite fearing S.C. would bruise them; combined history and observations supported endangerment | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (D) finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination is in children’s best interest | Mother argued children desired contact and Mother had improved (housing, recovery-coach), and termination cannot be based merely on being "better off" elsewhere | Department pointed to Mother’s drug use, inconsistent medication compliance, past aggression with children, and children’s severe needs requiring stable, supervised care | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to find termination in best interest |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(E) and (P) (placing with persons engaging in endangering conduct; substance abuse) | Mother challenged these predicate findings (argued insufficient proof) | Department relied on testimony of drug tests, history of substance use, and placement with abusive caregiver | Court: Did not reach these issues because (D) + best interest suffice; (E) and (P) challenges unnecessary to decide |
| Appointment of Department as permanent managing conservator | Mother argued presumption favors parent conservatorship (Tex. Fam. Code §153.131) and she could provide housing/care or obtain treatment centers | Department argued that termination divests parental rights and §161.207 mandates appointment of suitable adult, Department or agency; Mother no longer presumptively entitled | Court: Appointment of Department upheld as a consequence of termination; Mother’s challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence in parental-rights termination)
- In re J.D.B., 435 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (reviewing legal/factual sufficiency in termination cases; definition of endanger)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (appellate review principles in termination cases; consider all evidence)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate plus best interest required to support termination)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
- In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (standard of review for conservatorship appointments after termination)