in the Interest of S.P.R., a Child
11-16-00100-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Appeal from trial court order terminating parental rights of father (Appellant) and mother (mother voluntarily relinquished and did not appeal).
- Department filed termination petition Dec. 15, 2014; father had pleaded guilty in federal court Sept. 3, 2014 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment (projected release in 2019).
- Trial court found termination grounds under Texas Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(Q): father’s incarceration would continue for at least two years from the petition date and rendered him unable to care for child S.P.R.
- Father proposed placement with cousin H.N.R.; DFPS conducted a home study and disapproved due to financial concerns and a pending criminal-relationship issue; no other willing/viable family placement was established.
- Child had been in a stable, thriving foster placement; DFPS’s goal was termination and unrelated adoption; CASA and caseworker supported termination as best for stability and permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence legally and factually supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(Q) (incarceration ≥2 years) | DFPS: Father’s federal conviction and 151-month sentence show incarceration and inability to care for child ≥2 years; proposed caregiver was investigated and disapproved | Father: Although incarcerated, he had provided an adequate alternative caregiver (cousin H.N.R.) willing to care for child during incarceration | Court: Evidence was legally and factually sufficient for subsection (Q); H.N.R. was not an approved viable placement, and no other willing caregiver shown |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | DFPS/CASA: Child is stable, happy in foster home; postponing permanency harms child; termination and adoption are in best interest | Father: He loves the child and intended to care for her after rehabilitation; opposes termination | Court: Evidence met Holley factors; termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard in parental-termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard and deference to factfinder in termination cases)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (§161.001(b)(1)(Q) requires incarceration and inability to care for child ≥2 years)
- In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (statutory grounds for termination may support best-interest finding)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)