in the Interest of S.M.S. and S.T.S., Children, 01-16-00997-CV

Two children, S.M.S. and S.T.S., were removed from the mother’s custody in 2005; the Department became managing conservator after a 2007 judgment that limited the mother to possessory rights contingent on completing services.
The mother and alleged father absconded with the children before reunification, living for years in an RV and traveling across states; authorities later in New Mexico returned the children to the Department.
The father never submitted to DNA testing or registered paternity; searches showed no claim of paternity or proof of marriage to the mother.
At the termination bench trial neither parent appeared in person; both communicated by phone with counsel and counsel participated; the trial court denied a continuance and proceeded.
The trial court terminated both parents’ parental rights. The father’s termination was grounded on Texas Family Code §161.002(b) (including the father’s failure to file an admission/counterclaim and his failure to comply with services); the mother argued lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §161.002(b)(1) or §161.002(b)(2)(B) supports termination of alleged father’s rights	Dept.: father failed to timely file admission of paternity and failed to establish paternity or cooperate	Father: conceded §161.002(b)(1) but contested sufficiency under §161.002(b)(2)(B)	Court: father conceded (b)(1); no need to decide (b)(2)(B); predicate for termination satisfied
Whether termination of father’s rights is in children’s best interest (legal and factual sufficiency)	Dept.: evidence of long-term instability, parental neglect, threats/violence, failure to complete services and paternity testing supports best interest	Father: contested sufficiency of evidence to show best interest	Court: evidence (children’s desires, safety concerns, parents’ conduct, failure to complete services) legally and factually sufficient to support best-interest finding
Whether trial court had personal jurisdiction over mother	Dept.: served mother’s counsel and mother made general appearances through filings and counsel’s actions	Mother: claims she was not personally served with the motion that added termination cross-claim and thus court lacked personal jurisdiction	Court: service on attorney was valid and mother waived jurisdiction by general appearance and by counsel’s participation; jurisdiction proper

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (standards for alternate predicate grounds in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency standard in parental-termination cases)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder and disregarding incredible evidence)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency standard in termination cases)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual insufficiency when disputed evidence cannot be credited)
Exito Elecs. Co. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (what constitutes a general appearance)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (personal-jurisdiction is waivable)