in the Interest of R.H., M.D.J. and M.K. Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 01-14-00874-CV

Background

D.K., mother of three children, was found indigent and appointed counsel after DFPS filed for termination in Feb 2013; the case was tried in Brazoria County and culminated in a bench trial ending Oct. 17, 2014 with termination of D.K.’s parental rights to all three children and DFPS named permanent managing conservator for two children.
Trial had multiple continuances; trial testimony relevant to D.K. was limited to D.K., the DFPS caseworker, and the guardian ad litem; D.K. admitted past drug use but testified she had been clean for six months at trial and had completed her service plan (with one missed UA).
On the first day back on the trial docket (Sept. 29, 2014), D.K. told her court‑appointed attorney she wanted to represent herself; the court released the attorney ad litem mid‑trial without an on‑record finding of good cause and told D.K. it would appoint new counsel if she later asked; when D.K. later requested counsel mid‑trial the court refused.
After judgment, D.K. retained counsel for post‑trial work and appeal filings; a court reporter filed a contest to D.K.’s affidavit of indigence after the notice of appeal, and the trial court later entered an order sustaining the contest and declaring prior indigence findings void.
The appellant argues (1) the court erred in allowing withdrawal of the attorney ad litem mid‑trial and denying reappointment when requested, (2) the contest to indigence was untimely and improperly nullified the presumption of continuing indigence, and (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(D), (E), and (O) and to show termination was in the children’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS)	Defendant's Argument (D.K.)	Held (trial court ruling)
1. Withdrawal of attorney ad litem mid‑trial	Court warned D.K.; she voluntarily released counsel so no reversible error	Trial court lacked statutory authority to release appointed ad litem without on‑record good cause; releasing counsel mid‑trial deprived D.K. of mandated representation	Trial court allowed withdrawal and proceeded without appointing new counsel when D.K. later requested one
2. Contest to affidavit of indigence	Contest filed by reporter and DFPS argued D.K. had hired private counsel so was no longer indigent	Contest was untimely (must be within 3 days of notice of appeal) and lacked required factual allegations; prior findings of indigence remained presumptive	Trial court sustained the contest and declared prior indigence orders void
3. Sufficiency under §161.001(D) and (E) (endangerment)	Evidence of unstable housing, drug use, and association with persons with criminal records supported findings that D.K. knowingly placed/allowed children in dangerous conditions and engaged in conduct endangering them	Children were left with a trusted schoolteacher; no evidence children were harmed or that D.K. knew of any danger; evidence insufficient to prove causal nexus or continuing course of conduct	Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that D.K. violated subsections (D) and (E) and terminated parental rights
4. Sufficiency under §161.001(O) and best‑interest / conservatorship	D.K. failed to complete court‑ordered services and children had been in DFPS conservatorship >9 months; termination and DFPS conservatorship served children's best interest	No proof children were removed for abuse/neglect by D.K.; service‑plan compliance disputed; parental presumption and Holley factors weigh against termination	Trial court found subsection (O) satisfied, found termination in children's best interest, and appointed DFPS (and one father for middle child) as managing conservator

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (list of factors to determine child's best interest)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in termination cases — clear and convincing evidence analysis)
In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (discussion of the fundamental nature of parental rights in termination jurisprudence)
In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (holding trial court may not relieve appointed ad litem without on‑record good cause; appellate court addressed consequences when appellant failed to raise certain claims)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of endangerment for termination under family code)