in the Interest of S.L.W., a Child
529 S.W.3d 601
Tex. App.2017Background
- DFPS filed to terminate Allen and Alice’s parental rights to their daughter Sally; CCL1 entered the termination order after trial on May 1, 2017.
- The case was originally filed in County Court at Law No. 2 (CCL2) and, per a December 10, 2015 docket entry and later written order, was handled by County Court at Law No. 1 (CCL1); an extension under Tex. Fam. Code §263.401(b) to May 27, 2017 was entered by CCL1.
- Sally was removed as an infant after parental drug use and home infestation concerns; Alice had ongoing methamphetamine and morphine addiction and mental-health issues.
- Allen has bipolar disorder and a history of domestic violence (multiple assaults, including incidents while partners were pregnant and an alleged choking while holding Sally); he completed some services but committed a later assault during the case.
- Trial evidence included CPS testimony, a psychologist’s evaluation raising personality/mental-health concerns for Allen, and testimony that Sally was bonded with foster parents (the Mooneys), who sought to intervene and adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / timeliness of trial and transfer | Allen argued one-year dismissal under §263.401 had passed and CCL1 lacked jurisdiction because formal transfer from CCL2 occurred after the deadline | State/DFPS (and court) relied on docket entry, Gov't Code §74.121 bench exchange/transfer authority, and that §263.401 deadlines are not jurisdictional absent a timely motion to dismiss | Court: Transfer to CCL1 was valid (bench exchange authority); §263.401 deadlines are non-jurisdictional and no timely dismissal motion was filed — CCL1 had jurisdiction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Ground E (endangerment) to terminate Allen | Allen disputed that his conduct or placement of Sally with dangerous persons met clear-and-convincing standard | DFPS pointed to Allen leaving Sally with Alice while she used meth, Allen’s domestic-violence history (including choking while holding Sally), and mental-health concerns | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support Ground E. |
| Best-interest of the child | Allen argued strong parent-child bond, completion of many services, stable employment and visitation weighed against termination | DFPS and foster parents emphasized ongoing risk from domestic violence, failure to protect Sally from mother’s drug use, and stable, bonded foster home planning to adopt | Court: Considering Holley factors, evidence supported that termination was in Sally’s best interest. |
| Motion to strike Mooneys’ intervention | Allen contended the Mooneys’ petition was untimely | Mooneys showed placement exceeded statutory foster-parent standing period and active participation in case; trial court has discretion | Court: Denial of motion to strike was not an abuse of discretion; Mooneys’ intervention sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (§263.401 timing is non-jurisdictional)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard and parental-rights termination principles)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (definition of clear-and-convincing burden and termination review rules)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing conflicting evidence and fact-finder deference)