in the Interest of S.S.B. and R.D., III, Children
14-15-00352-CV
| Tex. | Sep 15, 2015Background
- Children S.S.B. and R.D., III were removed by the Department of Family & Protective Services in Feb 2014; foster placement thereafter with a home seeking to adopt both children.
- The trial court terminated mother R.T.B.’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (M), and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- The trial court terminated father R.D., Jr.’s parental rights under § 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found termination was in R.D., III’s best interest; father challenged sufficiency of evidence under (O) and the best-interest finding.
- Evidence: father repeatedly tested positive for drugs during the case (multiple positive tests in 2014), entered 30‑day inpatient rehab in Dec 2014, had recent negative tests by trial, attended NA and outpatient services but had limited stable employment/housing and had not completed all service-plan requirements.
- Caseworker testimony: the children were bonded, receiving appropriate medical care in a drug‑free foster home; prior placement with paternal grandmother was ended for medical neglect; Department recommended termination to secure permanency.
- Procedural outcome: Court of Appeals (14th) affirmed the trial court’s termination judgments as to both parents; mother’s appeal dismissed on Anders grounds as frivolous; father’s challenges rejected because unchallenged statutory grounds (D) and (E) supported the judgment and best‑interest finding was legally and factually sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mother's appeal: whether non‑frivolous issues exist | Termination was supported by statutory grounds and best interest; counsel’s Anders brief properly concluded no arguable issues | Mother did not file pro se response; counsel asserted appeal frivolous | Court agreed with Anders brief; affirmed termination (appeal frivolous) |
| 2. Father: sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court‑ordered plan) | Father failed to complete required services, had ongoing drug use during pendency; statutory grounds proven | Father argued evidence legally and factually insufficient under (O) | Court declined to reach (O) because unchallenged (D) and (E) also supported termination; judgment upheld |
| 3. Father: best interest of the child | Termination necessary for stability and permanency; foster home bonded to child and willing to adopt; father’s instability and drug history endangered child | Father argued he had made progress in rehab, attended services, was loving at visits and had support network | Court found evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in child’s best interest; affirmed |
| 4. Standard of review and burden | Clear and convincing evidence required for both statutory grounds and best interest; appellate review applies heightened legal and factual sufficiency standards | Father challenged sufficiency under those standards | Court applied In re C.H./In re J.F.C. standards and concluded factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and appellate review in termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal‑ and factual‑sufficiency standards in parental‑termination appeals)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (termination requires proof of statutory grounds and best interest)
- In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (presumption favoring parent and Department’s burden to rebut)