In the Interest of S.J.R.-Z., 537 S.W.3d 677

Background

Dept. of Family and Protective Services removed six children in 2015 after newborn J.G.H. III tested positive for marijuana and investigators found poor home conditions, parental substance use, and domestic violence concerns.
The Department filed for conservatorship and termination; parents were given service plans and supervised visitation but the children remained in the Department’s care for over nine months.
Mother completed some classes but failed to complete individual counseling and in‑home parenting classes, maintain stable housing, keep children out of a prohibited relative’s home, or consistently follow therapists’ recommendations. Reunification attempts failed and children were reremoved.
Father was not listed on two children’s birth certificates and did not file an admission of paternity, but he appeared at trial and testified that he was the children’s father and opposed termination on other grounds.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court‑ordered service plan) and found termination was in the children’s best interests; Father’s rights were terminated and the order also included a finding under § 161.002(b)(1) that he failed to timely file an admission of paternity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s failure to challenge the § 161.002(b)(1) finding on appeal is dispositive	Dept.: Father failed to challenge independent ground (failure to file paternity) so appellate court should accept it and affirm	Father: challenged only other statutory grounds and best‑interest findings, and he appeared at trial and admitted paternity, which should require Dept. to prove a § 161.001(b)(1) ground and best interest	Court: Father waived appellate challenge to § 161.002(b)(1); unchallenged ground is accepted and suffices to affirm termination of his rights
Whether evidence supports Mother’s termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with service plan) — legal sufficiency	Mother: completed many classes and contends partial completion and attendance suffice	Dept.: Mother failed to complete key requirements (individual therapy, in‑home parenting), failed to implement skills, maintained unstable housing, and repeatedly violated restrictions (maternal grandmother’s home)	Court: Evidence (in light most favorable) is legally sufficient; partial or sporadic compliance insufficient under subsection (O)
Whether evidence supports termination as in children’s best interests under § 161.001(b)(2) — factual sufficiency	Mother: presumption favors keeping children with parent; her class completion and some improvements weigh against termination	Dept.: children need permanence and were endangered by prior neglect, instability, missed school/therapy, and mother’s inability to protect/provide	Court: Considering Holley factors and statutory best‑interest factors, evidence (including risk to safety, instability, lack of bonding, failed services) is legally and factually sufficient to find termination is in children’s best interests
Whether appellate standards of review applied correctly to clear‑and‑convincing evidence	Mother: challenges sufficiency under legal and factual standards	Dept.: supports trial court credibility findings and sufficiency	Court: Applied clear‑and‑convincing legal‑ and factual‑sufficiency standards (J.F.C., J.L.) and deferred to factfinder credibility — affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Phillips v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 25 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (§ 161.002(b)(1) permits summary termination where alleged father fails to assert paternity)
Toliver v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 217 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (appearance and assertion of paternity at trial triggers right to require proof of § 161.001 grounds)
In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency review under clear‑and‑convincing standard)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2003) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard in termination cases and appellate review approach)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (definition of factual sufficiency under clear‑and‑convincing standard)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder on credibility and weight of evidence)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for child’s best interest)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (short‑term improvements insufficient to negate long history of neglectful conduct)