in the Interest of S.S.R., J.H.R. Jr., and G.D.R
04-16-00242-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed for protection, conservatorship, and termination of parental rights for three children after neglectful-supervision allegations; children were ages 13, 10, and 8 at filing.
- Father was ordered to comply with a family-service plan (psychosocial/drug assessment, counseling, parenting, random drug tests, housing, employment, medical/dental care).
- Children were returned to Father on a monitored basis (Aug 2015) but removed again Jan 25, 2016; allegations included lack of electricity at home, unmet hygiene/medical needs, physical markings consistent with abuse, and Father’s failure/refusal on random UAs and counseling.
- Bench trial occurred March 29, 2016 in Father’s absence; trial court terminated Father’s rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan) (also cited other grounds).
- Evidence at trial: caseworker, therapist, foster mother, and special-education teacher testified about unmet needs, repeated failures to engage with services, children’s desire for adoption by foster family, and the youngest child’s special needs and history of neglect/abuse.
- Father appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency as to statutory grounds and best interest; Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order.
Issues
| Issue | State/Dept's Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan) | Father failed to follow court-ordered service plan (refused UAs, stopped counseling, failed to schedule medical/dental care, allowed unsupervised contact with Mother), and children had been in DFPS conservatorship ≥9 months | Evidence legally and factually insufficient to prove noncompliance and to warrant termination | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove subsection (O) ground by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Children’s needs unmet, history of removals, professionals and children favored permanency with foster family; Father failed to make long-term changes | Father lacks capacity but appellant urged against termination and for DFPS conservatorship to avoid severing parental ties and to preserve placement options | Affirmed: totality of evidence supported best-interest finding; trial court could form firm conviction termination was best for the children |
| Whether appellate review should reweigh credibility under heightened (clear-and-convincing) standard | Appellate court should defer to factfinder’s credibility determinations while ensuring evidence could produce firm belief | Father argued the evidence did not suffice under heightened review and disputed facts favored him | Court applied heightened standard, deferred to trial factfinder, and found evidence sufficient |
| Whether only one statutory ground needed to be proven to sustain termination | State need only prove one ground plus best interest | Father opposed termination overall; challenged grounds and best interest | Court upheld termination based on subsection (O) alone and therefore did not address other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence in termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency standards for termination reviewed under clear-and-convincing standard)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors to consider in best-interest analysis)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in the child’s best interest but court may consider safety and permanency)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder’s credibility determinations)