in the Interest of S.R.M., a Child
04-17-00101-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Infant S.R.M. tested positive for heroin at birth (Mar 2015); DFPS removed the child and filed for termination on June 22, 2015.
- J.M. had a documented history of illegal drug use (initial tests positive for cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamines) and a lengthy criminal record.
- DFPS prepared a family service plan requiring drug screens, services, and visitation; J.M. failed to complete required drug testing or participate in services and provided no financial support after removal.
- J.M. had intermittent incarceration during the case and was jailed at the time of trial; he claimed he could provide for the child upon release.
- The trial court found statutory predicate grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1) and also found termination was in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal, J.M. challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the best‑interest finding; the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | J.M.: evidence was insufficient to show termination was in the child’s best interest | State/DFPS: evidence (bonding with foster family, child thriving, J.M.’s drug use, nonparticipation in services, incarceration, instability) supports best interest | Affirmed — evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency in termination cases)
- In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (deference owed to factfinder; best-interest considerations)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (involuntary termination statutes strictly construed)
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (termination is complete, final, and irrevocable)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate finding plus best interest needed for termination)
- In re R.S.D., 446 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (same evidence may support both predicate and best-interest findings)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence probative of both statutory grounds and best interest)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (stability and parental ability weigh heavily in best-interest)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring preservation of parent-child relationship)
- Trevino v. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 893 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (standard for factual‑sufficiency review)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (weight of evidence standard in civil appeals)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (appellate deference to factfinder)
- Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (continued illegal drug use after removal bears on parental rights)