In the Interest of T.G.R.-M.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2992
Tex. App.2013Background
- Termination of mother M.R.’s parental rights to T.G.R.-M. in favor of DFPS as sole managing conservator after bench trial; grounds invoked: Family Code §161.001(1)(E), (L)(ix), (O); best interest found under §161.001(2).
- Mother pleaded guilty to injury to a child for abuse of T.G.R.-M.’s older sibling Y.C., and was placed on four years’ community supervision; later arrested for criminal trespass and burglary of a habitation, with four months’ incarceration.
- Mother had unstable housing history (transitional housing, emergency shelter, periods of homelessness), long unemployment (20+ months), and incomplete psychiatric/psychotherapy treatment; ongoing mental health concerns and depression with suicide attempt noted.
- Foster mother testified T.G.R.-M. is thriving in placement and is eligible for adoption; department witness described mother’s inability to provide stable housing and adequate care.
- The appellate court affirmed termination: evidence legally and factually sufficient for endangerment under §161.001(1)(E) and for best interests under §161.001(2); issues regarding subsections (L)(ix) and (O) not reached due to sufficiency under (E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether endangerment finding under §161.001(1)(E) is supported. | Department: endangerment shown by mother’s conduct and instability. | Mother: her criminal history alone does not prove endangerment. | Yes; evidence shows a course of conduct endangering child; E upheld. |
| Whether termination is in T.G.R.-M.’s best interests under §161.001(2). | Department: Holley factors favor termination due to instability and danger. | Mother: some programs and potential for improvement; bond with child unclear. | Yes; Holley factors support termination in child’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are not absolute; focus on child’s best interests)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny of termination; rights not absolute)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (parental rights termination requires focus on child’s best interests)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (clear and convincing standard; multiple predicates possible; one suffices if best interests shown)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence; sufficiency review framework)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors for best interests; not exhaustive)
- Boyd v. Department, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment standard; circumstances beyond direct injury may endanger)
- In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (considerations of parental absence and incarceration impact on child)