in the Interest of P.M., a Child
11-20-00290-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- P.M., age 12, was removed after an outcry of sexual assault by a relative and after testing positive for methamphetamine while in Appellant’s care.
- The trial court found Appellant committed statutory grounds for termination under Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), and (O); Appellant did not challenge those findings on appeal.
- The court-ordered services (stable housing/employment, parenting classes, inpatient treatment, psychological evaluation, counseling) were not completed by Appellant; she continued methamphetamine use and tested positive less than three weeks before trial.
- Appellant had a long history of Department involvement; other children were removed or had parental rights terminated in prior cases.
- The permanency case manager reported P.M. was doing well in long-term foster care, the Department’s goal was adoption, and terminating Appellant’s rights would allow P.M. to be adopted and avoid prolonged uncertainty.
- Appellant appealed solely the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s best-interest finding; the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination is in the child’s best interest under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(2) | Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show termination is in P.M.’s best interest. | The Department contends the Holley factors, Appellant’s continuing drug use, instability, long history with the Department, and the child’s successful foster placement provide clear and convincing evidence of best interest. | Affirmed. The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient; termination was in P.M.’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard and due deference to factfinder in termination cases)
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (trial court is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (credibility and demeanor determinations lie with the factfinder)
- In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (Holley factors guide best-interest analysis; statutory grounds may support best interest)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexhaustive list of factors for determining a child’s best interest)