In the Interest of S.M., a Child
389 S.W.3d 483
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Raul, the father, has been incarcerated for most of S.M.’s life and has never met her.
- S.M. was born July 16, 2009, and was removed after her mother left her in a motel with police called for endangerment.
- The Department filed for protection and conservatorship; temporary orders appointed the Department as temporary sole managing conservator; the mother’s rights were terminated before trial.
- The Department introduced Raul’s four prior convictions (three assaults, one cocaine possession) and his probation violations; he pled guilty but claimed innocence.
- Raul acknowledged no current means to support S.M. while incarcerated; his plans included parole, housing with relatives, and an unclear path to permanency.
- The trial court found clear and convincing evidence under 161.001(1)(E) and that termination was in S.M.’s best interests, terminating Raul’s rights and naming DFPS sole managing conservator; Raul challenged denial of a continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under 161.001(1)(E) | Raul argues the court erred in finding endangerment. | Department contends evidence supports endangerment via Raul’s criminal history and incarceration. | Sufficiency supports endangerment; endangerment shown by prior convictions and imprisonment. |
| Best interests standard sufficiency | Raul contends best interests were not supported by evidence. | Department asserts adoption plans and stability support termination. | Best interests supported by evidence of endangerment, lack of contact, and availability of adoptive placement. |
| Motion for continuance denial | Raul claims denial was abuse of discretion due to inadequate preparation. | Department argues motion unsworn and lack of affidavit justify denial. | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parent-child rights within termination framework; due process heightened standard)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (clear and convincing standard in termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (explicit standard for termination review)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors may inform best-interests analysis)
- In re L.M., 104 S.W.3d 642 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (best interests considerations in termination)
- In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2003) (course of conduct endangering child; pre-birth conduct considered)
- In the Interest of S.D., 980 S.W.2d 758 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998) (endangerment and parental conduct impact on child)
- In the Interest of C.P.V.Y., 315 S.W.3d 260 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2010) (relevance of related evidence in termination context)
- In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2004) (imprisonment considered in endangerment analysis)
- Harris v. Herbers, 838 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (endangerment context and parent history considerations)