R. P. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
03-16-00308-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- R.P., a verified foster parent, had multiple foster children in her home; on Jan. 2, 2012 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) removed three siblings and began an investigation into alleged child-on-child sexual acting out and supervision failures.
- The Department’s investigation and investigative report concluded R.P. violated Department Minimum Standards by permitting an unapproved caregiver (T.E.), leaving children unsupervised, failing to timely report a serious incident, and allowing improper discipline resulting in bruising.
- The Department made a summary finding of neglect and placed R.P.’s name on the central child-abuse/neglect registry.
- R.P. requested a contested-case due-process hearing before an ALJ and moved to exclude portions of the Department’s investigative report and audio recordings as hearsay; the ALJ admitted the contested materials, reserving weight determination.
- The ALJ found R.P. committed neglect under Tex. Fam. Code § 261.401(a)(3) and ordered her name remain on the registry; the district court affirmed on substantial-evidence review.
- On appeal R.P. challenged (1) admission of hearsay and out-of-court statements (and confrontation/due-process implications) and (2) whether, excluding the objected-to evidence, substantial evidence nonetheless supports the neglect finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.P.) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of investigative report and interview recordings (hearsay) | ALJ improperly admitted hearsay (children’s out-of-court statements and report summaries); admission violated due process and confrontation rights | Report admissible under public-records exception (Tex. R. Evid. 803(8)) and/or APA §2001.081 allowing otherwise-inadmissible evidence when necessary and commonly relied upon | Court assumed possible error but found any erroneous admission not reversible because remaining competent evidence supports outcome |
| Admission of witnesses’ testimony recounting child statements | Testimony repeating children’s statements was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial | Testimony admissible under same exceptions; ALJ may weigh reliability | ALJ’s admission not reversible error given remaining evidence supporting findings |
| Sufficiency of evidence absent objected-to hearsay | Without the contested report and recordings, the order lacks substantial evidentiary support and is arbitrary | Even excluding objected-to evidence, testimony and records (e.g., lack of background check for T.E., absence of incident report, removal circumstances) provide substantial evidence of neglect | Held: Substantial evidence remains to support findings that R.P. permitted an unapproved caregiver and failed to supervise/comply with standards, supporting neglect designation |
| Prejudice and reversible error standard on administrative review | Erroneous admission deprived R.P. of substantial rights requiring reversal | Any error harmless if, after disregarding contested evidence, competent evidence supports agency findings | Held: No reversible error; R.P. failed to show prejudice and district court judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Employees Ret. Sys. of Tex. v. Garcia, 454 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (explains substantial-evidence/rational-basis standard for agency review)
- Texas Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984) (agency action must have a reasonable basis in the record)
- Slay v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 351 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (presumption that agency findings are supported; challenger bears burden)
- Vista Med. Ctr. Hosp. v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co., 416 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (describes two-part substantial-evidence inquiry: logical support and reasonable evidentiary support)
- Granek v. Texas State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 172 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (factfinder determines witness credibility and weight of testimony)
- Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (explains scope of de novo review for legal aspects of agency findings)