in the Interest of R. M., C. W. & L. W., Children
12-21-00099-CV
Tex. App.Oct 20, 2021Background
- The Department filed for protection, conservatorship, and termination of A.M.'s parental rights to R.M., C.W., and L.W. on October 15, 2019; the Department was named temporary managing conservator.
- Critical incident: C.W. suffered severe arm/elbow injuries after falling from a riding lawnmower while the children were in the care of paternal relatives B.S. and F.S.; the children also had untreated illnesses and other unexplained injuries.
- A.M. and the children's father were homeless at the time and left the children with B.S./F.S.; A.M. failed to authorize medical care and had limited contact/visits with the children during the case.
- A.M. admitted a history of drug use, missed numerous requested drug tests (many treated as positives), produced positive drug tests for marijuana, and failed to complete ordered services (ADAC, psychological evaluation, parenting program). J.W. (the mother’s partner) also tested positive for methamphetamine and other substances; F.S. had a meth possession conviction.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; A.M. appealed challenging legal and factual sufficiency. The appellate court affirmed as to (D), (E), and best-interest findings, and declined to reach (O) and (P).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate under §161.001(b)(1)(D) (conditions/surroundings) | A.M.: evidence legally/factually insufficient to show she knowingly placed or allowed children to remain in endangering conditions | Dept.: children were left in unsafe relative home where severe injuries and untreated illnesses occurred; A.M. was homeless, failed to provide consent for medical care, and failed services/testing | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (D) |
| Sufficiency to terminate under §161.001(b)(1)(E) (parental conduct/course of conduct) | A.M.: no clear and convincing proof of an endangering course of conduct by her | Dept.: A.M.'s ongoing drug use, missed drug tests, failure to complete services, instability, and placement of children with individuals who had substance convictions created an endangering course of conduct | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (E) |
| Best interest of the children under §161.001(b)(2) | A.M.: termination not shown to be in children’s best interest given her employment and housing | Dept.: children thriving in foster placements that seek adoption; A.M.'s limited contact, untreated medical issues while in her care or her designees' care, continued substance concerns, and unstable environment favor termination | Affirmed — reasonable factfinder could form firm conviction termination was in the children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Vela v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (termination implicates fundamental constitutional rights)
- Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1976) (termination severs parent-child bonds and requires strict scrutiny)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency standard for clear-and-convincing proof)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard for termination findings)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of "endanger" and scope of endangerment inquiry)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental narcotics use can constitute endangering conduct)
- In re N.R., 101 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (conditions and surroundings as basis for termination)