In the Interest of R.S.-T., 522 S.W.3d 92

Background

Mother (Carla) gave birth Aug 7, 2014; DFPS opened a case Aug 8, 2014 after positive prenatal drug tests and concerns about Carla’s cognitive impairment; a safety plan required mother to live with her parents and DFPS to release the newborn only to them.
Carla left the safety-plan residence and avoided DFPS contact for ~6 weeks; the six-week-old child appeared lethargic and was hospitalized for dehydration/failure to thrive and then placed in foster care.
DFPS filed for termination; after an associate-judge trial and a de novo hearing, the trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) and found termination was in the child’s best interest.
Evidence at trial included DFPS investigators, caseworkers, medical professionals, a psychologist (evaluating Carla’s cognitive limits), the foster mother, and testimony from both parents; proofs showed missed medical care, improper formula preparation, ongoing domestic violence, substance use, and failure to complete service plans.
On appeal Ralph argued insufficient evidence for statutory grounds and that the de novo hearing improperly excluded the associate-judge record; Carla challenged only the best-interest finding, arguing DFPS failed to accommodate her cognitive limitations when providing services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by relying on associate-judge record at de novo hearing (Ralph)	Ralph: de novo hearing was limited and trial court improperly “cut off” consideration of earlier testimony	DFPS: Family Code §201.015(c) allows trial court to consider associate-judge record; parties admitted statement of facts without objection	Held: Trial court properly considered the associate-judge record; Ralph’s claim overruled
Sufficiency of evidence to terminate Ralph under §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)	Ralph: no evidence he knew of or disregarded risks to child; he did not contact DFPS and had limited involvement	DFPS: evidence showed Ralph knew of Carla’s drug use and DFPS concerns, domestic violence in home, lack of adequate care and his failure to act or complete services	Held: Evidence—both direct and circumstantial—was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (D) and (E); only one ground needed
Sufficiency re: §161.001(b)(1)(O) (Ralph)	Ralph challenged all statutory findings including (O)	DFPS relied on multiple grounds and need only prove one	Held: Court affirmed on (D) and (E) and did not address (O) further (one ground is sufficient)
Whether termination of Carla’s parental rights was in child’s best interest	Carla: DFPS failed to timely obtain neuropsych eval and failed to sufficiently accommodate her cognitive limitations, so she could not meaningfully complete services	DFPS: offered and repeatedly demonstrated services; delays occurred but caseworkers and providers used recommended accommodations (demonstration/repetition); Carla largely failed to attend/complete services and left safety plan, causing harm to child	Held: Evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Holley factors and statutory best-interest considerations to support termination; Carla’s appeal overruled

Key Cases Cited

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights are fundamental and termination requires strict scrutiny)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard and sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard under clear-and-convincing proof)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (crediting and discrediting evidence in sufficiency review)
In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review under clear-and-convincing standard)
In re L.J.N., 329 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010) (noting appellate scrutiny in termination proceedings)
In re N.T., 335 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (discussing scope of de novo hearing and consideration of prior record)