in the Interest of R.L. AKA R.C. AKA R.M. and R.L., Children
01-16-00851-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- DFPS sought and the trial court awarded permanent managing conservatorship of four children (ages 16, 12, 4, 2) to DFPS after a bench trial; mother T.H.L. appealed only the conservatorship appointment.
- Central safety facts: T.H.L.’s then-fiancé D.J. was found murdered in the family home with children present; T.H.L. had left the house overnight before the homicide and returned to find the scene, allowed a minor to enter the room, and shortly thereafter left town for a period.
- Evidence at trial of parental unfitness/risk: histories of domestic violence (including between T.H.L. and R.A.L.), T.H.L.’s relationships with men having criminal histories (including Riggins), dishonesty and misrepresentations, attempts to circumvent DFPS (secret communications via an iPod, violating a no-contact order), and an instance where T.H.L. nearly drove off with infant in her lap during law‑enforcement contact.
- Placement and child welfare evidence: each child was reported to be doing well in stable foster or kinship placements (therapy, school improvement, extracurriculars); several child advocates, DFPS caseworkers, and therapists recommended continued placement with DFPS and supervised visitation only.
- Procedural/legal posture: DFPS abandoned termination claims at trial and sought permanent conservatorship under Tex. Fam. Code §263.404 (appointing DFPS without terminating parental rights). The trial court found awarding custody to the mother would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional development and that DFPS appointment was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.H.L.) | Defendant's Argument (DFPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointment of DFPS as permanent managing conservator was supported by evidence that awarding conservatorship to the mother would significantly impair children’s physical health or emotional development | T.H.L.: evidence insufficient — she completed services, loves her children, is employed, lacks criminal history, and can provide care | DFPS: presented specific acts/omissions (domestic violence history, poor judgment re: men with criminal histories, dishonesty, interfering with placements, unsafe housing, failure to complete family therapy, trauma re: home homicide) creating risk of physical/emotional harm | Court affirmed: preponderance and factually sufficient evidence supported finding that awarding custody to T.H.L. would significantly impair the children; DFPS appointment did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (standard of review and authority for appointing non‑parent/DFPS as conservator without terminating parental rights)
- Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (party seeking non‑parent conservatorship must show parent’s appointment would significantly impair child)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best‑interest factors for child‑custody decisions)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review principles for trial evidence)
- In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015) (examples of parental acts/omissions supporting finding of significant impairment)