in the Interest of R.B., a Child
07-17-00187-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Mother (A.R.T.) appealed termination of her parental rights to children R.B. and A.D.T.; trial court terminated under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) and found termination in children’s best interests.
- Mother married R.T., who used methamphetamine and marijuana in the home; mother knew of his use and permitted him to remain.
- During a multi-day methamphetamine binge, mother ingested meth, experienced drug-induced psychosis, shook infant A.D.T. believing the child wasn’t breathing, and exhibited delusional behavior; law enforcement removed the children.
- Evidence showed mother’s past and continuing drug use (marijuana and meth), associations with other drug users (including the children’s biological father), and apparent impaired behavior during supervised visits and counseling.
- Children were placed with foster parents who wished to adopt; foster care placement provided stability, children appeared happy, and professionals expressed concern about returning the children to mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(E) (course of conduct that endangers child) | A.R.T.: isolated incident(s) at most; no deliberate, ongoing course of dangerous conduct | Department/Respondent: mother’s drug use, associations with drug users, psychotic episode, shaking infant, and continued use after removal show an ongoing endangering course | Court: affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove a course of conduct endangering the children under (E) |
| Proper temporal scope for (E) evaluation — whether post-removal conduct is relevant | A.R.T.: only pre-removal conduct should matter | Respondent: post-removal conduct may be considered to show ongoing course and risk if child returned | Court: post-removal conduct is relevant under (E); (E) focuses on a course over time, not just pre-removal snapshot |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | A.R.T.: disputes sufficiency; argues improvement and reunification attempts | Respondent: stability in foster placement, children’s needs met, professional concerns about mother’s mental health, relapse and noncompliance with visitation directives | Court: affirmed — totality of evidence supports that termination was in children’s best interests |
| Whether disputed evidence precluded firm conviction required for clear-and-convincing standard | A.R.T.: contested facts create reasonable doubt | Respondent: testimony and circumstantial evidence permit firm conviction | Court: affirmed — disputed evidence not so significant as to prevent finding by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental narcotics use and parenting ability may constitute endangering course of conduct)
- Ybarra v. Tex. Dep't of Human Servs., 869 S.W.2d 574 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993) (analysis of pre-removal environment under precursor to § 161.001(b)(1)(D))
- In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (post-removal parental conduct may be considered under § 161.001(b)(1)(E))
- In re K.P., 498 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (citing S.R.; parent’s post-removal conduct relevant to (E))
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exclusive factors for determining child’s best interests)