in the Interest of S.M., a Minor, 05-16-01033-CV

Background

The Department filed petitions seeking conservatorship and termination of mother Keyera Sakela Eley’s parental rights to four children (S.N., Jr.; S.M.; H.E.; K.E.); temporary orders placed the children with the Department.
The trial court conditioned return on completion of services (parenting classes, psychological evaluation/recommended intensive parenting program, counseling, drug/alcohol assessment and treatment, random drug testing, psychiatric services); mother completed only an initial parenting class and did not complete the recommended intensive parenting program or drug counseling.
Mother repeatedly tested positive for cocaine on hair-strand tests and had some non-clean urinalyses; she also allegedly posted on Facebook suggesting prostitution and did not disclose the father of one child.
The parties mediated the day before trial and reached settlement agreements terminating mother’s rights; mother left the mediation abruptly, later told her lawyer to “do whatever you want,” did not appear at trial, and did not sign the agreements.
The trial court terminated mother’s parental rights and appointed the Department permanent managing conservator; the appellate court affirmed as to three children and modified the judgment in the K.E. case to correct the child’s identity and conservatorship designation.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered services after removal for abuse/neglect for ≥9 months)	Evidence insufficient: caseworker testimony was conclusory and did not prove orders required compliance for return or that removal was for abuse/neglect	Caseworker’s testimony set out factual predicates (existence of specific orders, mother’s noncompliance, children in custody ≥9 months, removal under Ch. 262 for abuse/neglect)	Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O)
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest	Insufficient evidence to show termination served children’s best interest	Mother’s ongoing drug use, failure to complete services, instability, and available adoptive placements supported best-interest finding	Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in best interest
Whether Department appointment as permanent managing conservator was improper	Mother argued presumption favors parent as managing conservator (Tex. Fam. Code §153.131)	Once parental rights are terminated, §161.207 controls and permits Department appointment; mother offered no evidence she was a suitable, competent adult	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion appointing Department
Whether trial court’s judgment in K.E. case misidentified child and conservatorship	Mother sought correction	Appellate court found clerical error	Modified judgment to correctly identify King Eley (K.E.) and appoint Department as permanent managing conservator; affirmed as modified

Key Cases Cited

In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (standards for legal sufficiency and appellate review in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency review in termination; consider disputed evidence)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Department need not prove every Holley factor to establish best interest)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (use of Holley factors in termination appeals)
Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. 1996) (definition and treatment of conclusory testimony)