in the Interest of S.L., a Child
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 11465
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Department removed S.L. (aged ~1 at removal) after appellant H.B. tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana and had prior referrals for neglectful supervision; temporary managing conservatorship obtained in Jan. 2012.
- Appellant did not engage with Department services until April 2012, missed drug‑treatment appointments, was unsuccessfully discharged from Freeman Center for noncompliance, and had at least one missed drug test; she admitted past methamphetamine and marijuana use.
- Appellant moved frequently (≥6 moves), worked irregularly (primarily as an exotic dancer), had four other children not in her care, and provided no child support during the case. Appellant did not appear or testify at trial.
- The trial court found predicate grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O) and also found termination was in S.L.’s best interest; father voluntarily relinquished his rights.
- S.L. had been placed with a paternal cousin (prospective adoptive placement) where the child was bonded, had stable housing, and needs met; cousin planned to adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of endangerment under §161.001(1)(D) (conditions/surroundings) | Evidence was insufficient to show H.B. knowingly placed or allowed S.L. to remain in endangering conditions. | Department argued H.B.’s drug use, unstable housing, missed services/visits, and lifestyle endangered the child. | Not addressed on merits — appellate court affirmed on unchallenged §161.001(1)(O) ground. |
| Legal sufficiency of endangerment under §161.001(1)(E) (parental conduct/persons) | H.B. contended evidence did not show she engaged in conduct or placed child with persons who endangered the child. | Department relied on H.B.’s drug use, work environment, and noncompliance with services as evidence of endangering conduct. | Not addressed on merits — appellate court affirmed on unchallenged §161.001(1)(O) ground. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in child’s best interest | H.B. argued evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support best-interest finding. | Department pointed to missed visits, failure to complete service plan, drug history, instability, and stable prospective adoptive placement. | Affirmed — evidence both legally and factually sufficient; reasonable factfinder could form firm belief termination was in S.L.’s best interest. |
| Admission of hearsay about ongoing drug use and test tampering | H.B. argued trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements. | Department asserted testimony admissible/harmless if erroneous. | Any hearsay error was harmless in this bench trial; not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (sets Holley best‑interest factors)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standards for factual sufficiency review in termination cases)
- Swate v. Swate, 72 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002) (termination burden and proof)
- In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (affirmance may rest on any one predicate ground)
- Spangler v. Texas Dept. of Prot. & Reg. Servs., 962 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012) (discusses appellate treatment of multiple predicate findings)
- Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t Prot. & Reg. Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (focus on child’s best interest over parent’s)