522 S.W.3d 693
Tex. App.2017Background
- Two girls (ages seven and six) were removed from their mother in Feb. 2014 for severe neglect (filthy home, lice, dental and hygiene neglect, mother with schizophrenia); they are the only children of father F.C.
- Children were placed with maternal relatives then with foster parents after relatives could no longer care for them; mother’s rights were terminated; father’s parental rights were contested.
- DFPS developed a family service plan for father requiring provision of income info, psychosocial evaluation, and later family therapy; father signed the plan in April 2015 and completed most services shortly before trial but had limited prior contact with the children and had not resided with them.
- During the case, hair drug tests showed positive results for marijuana (Aug. 2015) and cocaine (July 2016); father denied drug use and alcohol use, though children reported seeing him drink and fight with the mother.
- Child Advocates and the children’s therapist reported that the children did not want to live with father; DFPS initially favored reunification but returned to seeking termination after the mid-trial positive cocaine test.
- The trial court terminated father’s parental rights on statutory grounds including endangerment; the majority affirmed on legal and factual sufficiency grounds while a dissent would have reversed as to best-interest sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS/Child Advocates) | Defendant's Argument (F.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(E) (endangerment) | Father’s conduct (domestic violence in children’s presence), leaving children with a neglectful mother, and positive drug tests show a course of conduct endangering the children | Father denied drug use and fighting; argued little evidence he lived with or abused the children; disputed reliability/meaning of tests | Affirmed: evidence (protective order/domestic incidents, neglectful mother, positive drug tests) was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment finding |
| Whether father failed to comply with court-ordered family service plan (§161.001(1)(O)) | DFPS relied on father’s earlier noncompliance and delays in services (though he later completed most requirements) as a statutory ground | Father completed nearly all FSP requirements (except added family therapy), attended visits and therapy, and asserted compliance | Not necessary to decide because court affirmed on (E); trial court also found (O) but majority did not rely on it to affirm |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest (§161.001(2)) | Children adamantly opposed living with father; father’s drug use mid-case, history of domestic violence, lack of consistent parenting, and improved stable foster placement support best-interest finding | Father completed services, bonded with children at visits, participated in family therapy, and there was sparse/ambiguous evidence of ongoing substance abuse or violent history; DFPS/advocate at times favored reunification | Affirmed by majority: clear-and-convincing evidence supports best-interest finding; Dissent would reverse as insufficient and emphasize presumption favoring parent-child relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination requires clear and convincing proof)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental-rights termination is strictly scrutinized)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency standard for termination appeals)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (endangerment can be inferred from parental misconduct)
- In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (endangerment requires more than metaphysical risk)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)