in the Interest of S.M.R., G.J.R. and C.N.R., Children
434 S.W.3d 576
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Father (Sergio) and mother (Patricia) had three children; children were removed after repeated medical neglect and lack of parental support; Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship under Chapter 262.
- A family-service plan (FSP) required the father to complete programs (domestic-violence/anger management, substance-abuse treatment/AA, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, random drug testing, stable housing/employment) to regain custody; father signed the plan.
- At trial the court terminated both parents’ rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment) and found termination in the children’s best interests; the judgment did not list (O) (failure to comply with court-ordered FSP) though the Department pleaded it.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the evidence factually insufficient to support the endangerment findings and remanded; a dissent would have affirmed.
- The Department appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing (1) the appellate court should have affirmed on unjudged ground (O) either by implying it or because it was conclusively established and (2) the court of appeals erred in its factual-sufficiency review of the endangerment findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 299 (implied findings) or analogous doctrine permits upholding a termination judgment on a ground (O) that was pleaded but omitted from the trial court’s judgment | Rule 299 should supply the omitted ground because evidence supports (O) and the trial court found other elements | Judgment omitted (O); Rule 299 presumes only omitted unrequested elements, not omitted but requested statutory grounds | Court: No. Judgment properly stated specific grounds; Rule 299 does not apply to supply a pleaded-but-omitted termination ground here |
| Whether subpart (O) was conclusively established as a matter of law (so appellate courts must affirm despite omission) | The children’s removal under Chapter 262 for neglect and the father’s failure to complete material FSP tasks are undisputed and thus conclusive | Father disputed substantial compliance and factual issues about housing, employment, and completion of services | Court: Not conclusive. Compliance and degree are factual issues; evidence was disputed so (O) cannot be established as a matter of law |
| Whether the court of appeals misapplied factual-sufficiency review in reversing termination under §161.001(1)(D),(E) | Court erred by discounting relevant evidence (e.g., mother’s psych report alleging domestic abuse) and thus misapplied standard | Father: appellate review properly considered reliability and probative value of evidence | Court: Court of appeals applied correct factual-sufficiency standard, reviewed relevant evidence, assessed its weight and reliability, and adequately explained why evidence was factually insufficient; affirmed appellate judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (charge omissions and deemed findings under Rule 279; analysis of jury-charge errors and implied findings)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard for parental-termination grounds; use of chapter 261 definitions to inform other chapters)
- Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. 1998) (appellate courts must detail relevant evidence and explain why it is factually insufficient)
- Jaffe Aircraft Corp. v. Carr, 867 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. 1993) (supervision of intermediate-appellate courts’ adherence to evidentiary-review standards)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (definition of factual sufficiency for termination: evidence enabling reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction)