in the Interest of v. L. R., a Child
08-15-00250-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 18, 2015Background
- TDFPS filed for temporary managing conservatorship and termination of mother S.H.R.’s parental rights to V.L.R., a 14‑year‑old, alleging neglect/sexual abuse; emergency temporary conservatorship was granted.
- Petitions and caseworker contacts indicated V.L.R. is a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe; TDFPS sent ICWA notices to the tribe and BIA; tribe acknowledged prior proceedings and that it would not intervene.
- S.H.R. previously had custody when the tribe removed the child at ~2.5 years; S.H.R. had minimal contact thereafter and did not attend trial.
- Trial court expressly found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that active efforts were made and that continued custody by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage, and it terminated S.H.R.’s parental rights under state law grounds.
- On appeal S.H.R. argued ICWA applies, the court failed to identify the child’s tribal status correctly, and the Section 1912(f) finding was unsupported because no qualified expert testified and evidence was legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.H.R.) | Defendant's Argument (TDFPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether V.L.R. is an "Indian child" under ICWA | Child is member of Oglala Sioux (or possibly another tribe) so ICWA applies | Notices and tribe contacts confirm membership; TDFPS treated case as ICWA | Court implied V.L.R. is an Indian child (Oglala Sioux); ICWA applies |
| Whether trial court made required Section 1912(f) finding | Trial court failed to make or adequately support a finding that continued custody would likely cause serious harm | Trial court’s termination order contains an express 1912(f) finding | Court found trial court did make the 1912(f) finding in the order, but review of sufficiency proceeded |
| Whether evidence supporting the 1912(f) finding was sufficient and included qualified expert testimony | No qualified expert testified; thus no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt supports the finding | TDFPS argued 1912(f) may not apply because mother had not had custody for long (relying on Adoptive Couple/Baby Girl and In re S.B.C.) | Court held evidence was legally insufficient under 1912(f) because no qualified expert testified; 1912(f) applies despite custody interruption |
| Whether Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl limits 1912(f) when parent lacks current custody | 1912(f) should apply because S.H.R. previously had custody; continued custody can mean custody resumed after interruption | TDFPS argued Baby Girl and related cases limit 1912(f) where parent never had custody, making expert proof unnecessary here | Court distinguished Baby Girl (parent here had prior custody) and held 1912(f) applies; absence of qualified expert requires reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (explains ICWA purpose and federal policy to keep Indian children in tribal community)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (U.S. 2013) (construes "continued custody" under ICWA)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for sufficiency review in parental‑termination appeals)
- In re K.S., 448 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2014) (applied Jackson standard to ICWA §1912(f) review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discussion of legal vs. factual sufficiency standards)
Outcome: Reversed termination and rendered judgment denying TDFPS’s petition to terminate S.H.R.’s parental rights due to legal insufficiency of the ICWA §1912(f) finding (no qualified expert testimony).