in the Interest of T.D.S., T.L.S., C.B.D., and M.K.D., Children
13-15-00107-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- In October 2013 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed to terminate W.D.’s parental rights to four children after a referral that her stepfather (W.G.D.) sexually abused daughter T.L.S.; the stepfather was later convicted of continuous sexual abuse and sentenced to 30 years. The children were removed and a court-ordered service plan was imposed on W.D.
- Multiple investigations occurred (2011, 2012, 2013). Older children T.D.S. and T.L.S. reported abuse; T.D.S. recorded an incident on his phone in 2013 that corroborated abuse.
- Witnesses (law enforcement, therapists, counselors, Department caseworkers, CASA) testified about: (a) appellant’s initial disbelief of the children, (b) appellant’s continued contact with and defense of the stepfather (including jail visits and recorded phone calls), (c) domestic violence in the household, and (d) neglect and emotional harm to the two younger boys (C.B.D. and M.K.D.).
- Appellant admits some failure to protect, acknowledges blame, but also testified she believed the stepfather after a polygraph and disputed certain allegations about her conduct and compliance with services.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that W.D. violated Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | W.D. (Appellant) Argument | Department / Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove W.D. knowingly placed/allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions (§161.001(b)(1)(D)) | W.D.: she lacked knowledge of actual abuse and therefore did not knowingly expose children to danger; she took some protective steps early on | Dept.: mother was aware of outcries, domestic violence, and risk; she repeatedly disbelieved and defended abuser, permitting continued exposure | Held: Affirmed — evidence (including multiple outcries, video, domestic violence, and W.D.’s conduct) satisfied clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether evidence was sufficient that W.D. placed the children with a person who engaged in endangering conduct (§161.001(b)(1)(E)) | W.D.: did not know abuse occurred; cannot be held to have placed children with an abuser knowingly | Dept.: sexual abuse by stepfather and mother’s failure to protect or restrict him supports inference of endangerment to all children | Held: Affirmed — sexual abuse and mother’s disregard of risk supported (E) ground |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan for ≥9 months) | W.D.: claimed substantial completion or excusable failures (housing, employment difficulties) | Dept.: W.D. did not complete and failed to comply with required service-plan goals (housing, employment, parenting, acceptance of responsibility, protective behavior) | Held: Affirmed — noncompliance with court-ordered service plan supports §161.001(b)(1)(O) ground |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | W.D.: loves her children, has sought counseling, will improve and can parent if given time | Dept./CASA/therapists: children fear and reject W.D.; younger boys are neglected and detached; appellant’s visits harmed children; risk of future harm remains; children are bonded to grandparents/placements | Held: Affirmed — totality of evidence (children’s wishes, emotional harm, parental conduct, lack of stability/compliance) supports finding that termination is in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination implicates fundamental parental rights requiring heightened proof)
- In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (clear-and-convincing standard and review framework for parental termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (appellate review principle: disregard evidence the factfinder could reasonably disbelieve)
- In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of endanger and parental knowledge/disregard standard)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors and best-interest analysis)