in the Interest of X.F.H., Z.T.A.A. and J.D.K., Children
14-15-00492-CV
| Tex. | Nov 10, 2015Background
- Mother (F.J.K.H.) has four sons (born 2000, 2001, 2008, 2010); Department removed children in 2011 and later filed two suits (2012) after an earlier case was dismissed.
- Department’s central concerns were Mother’s long-term substance abuse (marijuana, cocaine, PCP, alcohol) and untreated bipolar disorder with grandiose delusions; she tested positive for drugs multiple times, missed many ordered drug screens, and had mixed compliance with treatment.
- Mother completed an inpatient rehab program but later tested positive for cocaine and alcohol; she associated with people believed to be drug users and had several criminal charges and convictions.
- Trial court found termination proper under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(E) (endangerment) and (O) (failure to comply with service plan) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; final decrees terminated Mother’s parental rights and named the Department sole managing conservator.
- On appeal Mother challenged legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting predicate findings under (E) and (O) and the best-interest finding; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(1)(E) (endangerment) | Mother argued the evidence did not show a voluntary, deliberate, conscious course of conduct endangering the children sufficient for termination. | Department argued Mother’s longstanding drug use, positive tests after removal, untreated bipolar disorder, criminal history, and unsafe associations established an endangering course of conduct. | Court held evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (E). |
| 2. Whether evidence supported termination under §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with service plan) | Mother contended she substantially complied or that evidence was insufficient to show failure to comply with court-ordered services. | Department maintained Mother repeatedly failed drug screens, missed services, and did not maintain medication or treatment as required by the plan. | Court did not reach (O) because (E) was sufficient; (E) alone supports termination when best interest is shown. |
| 3. Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Mother argued she could parent if compliant with treatment and pointed to participation in some services and clinicians’ statements about potential to parent if stabilized. | Department emphasized ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental illness, criminal activity, visitation failures, and children’s stability and attachment to foster caregiver. | Court held the evidence supported a finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (legal-sufficiency standard and reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (endangerment may be established by drug use and untreated mental illness; persistence of conduct relevant)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; child’s interests may justify termination)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (misconduct alone can permit inference of specific danger to child)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate under §161.001(1) is necessary if best interest is found)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (deference to factfinder on credibility; appellate limits on substituting judgment)