in the Interest of S.T., a Child
508 S.W.3d 482
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- DFPS removed newborn S.T. after the mother tested positive for cocaine at birth; DFPS later filed for conservatorship and termination. Father was adjudicated the biological father after DNA testing and paroled in Jan 2015.
- Father completed most of his CPS service plan by May 2015 (housing, visitation, parenting classes) but had not finished individual counseling; CPS recommended continued supervised visitation and completion of services.
- Evidence at trial showed Father had a criminal history (drug possession, assaults, DWIs), prior CPS involvement concerning his other children, a past substance-use history, and a schizophrenia diagnosis treated by the VA; records for convictions and mental-health treatment were not admitted.
- DFPS sought to be named managing conservator and proposed maternal grandmother as a relative caregiver; CASA recommended termination or, alternatively, DFPS conservatorship for more time.
- The trial court named DFPS managing conservator and P.T. temporary possessory conservator; Father appealed arguing appointment of a parent would not significantly impair the child and that the parental-presumption was not overcome.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DFPS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding that appointing Father as managing conservator would significantly impair child’s physical health or emotional development (i.e., rebut parental presumption under Fam. Code §153.131) | Evidence is legally and factually insufficient; parental presumption unrebutted—Father completed most services and had appropriate housing/income/visits | Father invited the error by seeking alternative relief at trial; and the record contains evidence (criminal history, substance history, CPS involvement, mental-health concerns, limited visitation) supporting CPS placement | Court: Legal sufficiency — some evidence supports the trial court; Factual sufficiency — evidence is too weak/deficient to overcome parental presumption. Trial court abused discretion; reverse and remand for new trial. |
| Whether Father is estopped from appealing under the invited-error doctrine because he proposed alternative relief at trial | Not estopped: his pleadings and trial positions were equivocal and he consistently sought to be named managing conservator (trial court denied that relief) | Invited error: Father requested multiple alternative outcomes at trial, some matching the trial court’s ruling, so he cannot appeal that ruling | Court: Invited-error doctrine does not bar appeal because Father’s trial positions were not deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; decline to apply estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (distinguishes standards for termination vs conservatorship; conservatorship reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (explains limits of invited-error doctrine where appellant did not complain about what she asked the court to do and it did it)
- Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2005) (invited-error principle: cannot complain on appeal about action party requested)
- Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (nonparents must prove specific acts/omissions showing appointment of a parent would significantly impair the child)