in the Interest of O.R.F., a Child, 417 S.W.3d 24

Background

Department involvement began Feb 26, 2012 after maternal methamphetamine exposure at delivery; G.B. newborn placed for adoption and O.R.F. and D.J. left with Manns’ sister Lawson.
A service plan for reunification by May 20, 2013 required drug treatment, testing, mental health care, domestic violence training, parenting classes, and stable housing, with contact and compliance obligations.
Manns repeatedly missed Beginnings drug-treatment appointments and drug tests; she failed to engage consistently with caseworkers and to obtain or maintain treatment.
She admitted to methamphetamine use on multiple dates in 2012 and early 2013; she lived with an abusive partner providing drugs and did not leave that arrangement.
The Department filed an Original Petition May 18, 2012; the trial court adopted the service plan and temporary orders, including supervised visitation and child-support obligations.
By trial in April 2013 Manns had limited progress, with ongoing housing instability, limited employment, and ongoing drug use; O.R.F. had been in foster care since January 2013 and received counseling for trauma.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grounds for termination under 161.001(1)(E) and (O) were proven by clear and convincing evidence	Manns’ conduct endangered the child and violated court orders.	Her improvements and efforts negate endangerment and failure to comply were not willful.	Yes; evidence supports termination under 161.001(1)(E) and (O).
Whether termination was in O.R.F.’s best interests	Continued parental rights would risk ongoing instability; foster placement is best.	Mother could achieve stability with proper programs and time.	Yes; termination was in the child’s best interests.
Whether the trial court properly denied Manns’ motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence	New drug-test result, showing sobriety, would change the outcome.	Evidence was cumulative and not likely to change result; lack of diligence.	No abuse of discretion; motion for new trial properly denied.
Whether the trial court’s extension and continuance rulings were proper	Extraordinary circumstances warranted extending conservatorship.	Delays were not extraordinary; focus is on child’s needs.	Proper; no extraordinary circumstances requiring extension.
Whether Manns preserved as-applied constitutional challenges to Family Code sections 161.206 and 263.102	Sections unconstitutional as applied deprive notice due to lack of definite service-plan deadlines.	Challenge not properly preserved; record shows no timely objection in trial court.	Preservation not satisfied; challenge overruled as moot.

Key Cases Cited

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parents' rights are not absolute; child's best interest paramount)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (parental rights terminate only for fit parents; best interest test; clear and convincing standard)
In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) (parental rights termination requires compelling state interests and protective standards)
In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (strictly scrutinizes termination; deference to findings on grounds and best interests)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factors for best-interest determination; sufficiency standards of review)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (due-process heightened standard for termination; factual sufficiency framework)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (child’s constitutional interest in family integrity; strict scrutiny in termination)
In re N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (endangerment under 161.001(1)(E) includes parental omissions and conduct)
In re M.N.G., 147 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (long-term stability and inability to provide support weigh in best interests)