in the Interest of T.T.F., a Child, 331 S.W.3d 461

Department removed T.T.F. from S.M. twice; first removal in 2007, second in 2008; jury terminated parental rights in 2009 after trial; S.M. claimed due process violations and want of sufficient evidence; trial court found termination based on endangerment and best interest; Dr. Hollis diagnosed failure to thrive and medical neglect issues; S.M. had history of instability, homelessness, and lapses in Medicaid/food stamps; foster placement with intent to adopt by foster parents.
S.M. testified about housing instability, employment barriers due to criminal history, and efforts to stabilize life post-2008; she completed parenting classes and counselor programs; she argued she was improving and could provide for T.T.F. but the Department argued ongoing risk and lack of enduring stability.
Foster placement with intent to adopt by current foster family; T.T.F. suffered weight loss and health issues while in S.M.’s care; S.M. history show prior removals and ongoing Department supervision; court concluded termination in T.T.F.’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process was violated by retaining the suit past the dismissal date	S.M. argues extraordinary circumstances required before retention	Department acted under §263.401(b) and extension was permissible	No due process violation; retention proper under statute
Whether the court erred by not issuing a written order after the adversary hearing	S.M. claims lack of written terms for return of child	Statutory requirement not to issue terms written order; hearing sufficient	No due process violation; writing not required
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by severing trials	S.M. asserts prejudice from separate trials	Separations are within trial court’s discretion	No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated prejudice
Whether the service plan filed without S.M.'s signature violated due process	Delay deprived four months to work plan	Plan took effect when filed without signature; timely readiness ensured	No due process violation; plan effective upon filing
Whether the evidence supports endangerment and best interest findings	Endangerment and best interest not proven by clear and convincing evidence	Evidence shows endangerment due to neglect and unstable housing; best interest favors termination	Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support both endangerment and best-interest findings

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strictly construes termination statutes in favor of parents)
In re A.V., 849 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. 1993) (intent of legislature in termination context)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (clear and convincing standard in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (due process heightened standard in termination)
In re S.G.S., 130 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004) (endangerment evidence substantial for termination)
In re E.D.L., 105 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (timely hearings are non-jurisdictional; mandamus available)
In re M.J.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (statutory interpretation in extension scenarios)
R.R. (In re), 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (best interest presumption for keeping child with parent)