in the Interest of J.A.S. and J.D.L.S.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-12-00150-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 25, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants Eric and Elizabeth appeal the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their children, J.A.S. and J.D.L.S., arguing that the evidence was insufficient for termination and that it was not in the children's best interest. The court affirms the termination. The children, J.A.S. and J.D.L.S., were born in August 2009 and July 2010, respectively. In August 2010, the family lived with Eric’s parents in Floydada, Texas, where concerns of neglectful supervision were reported to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (CPS). An investigator encountered difficulties in communicating with the parents and noted concerning conditions, including Elizabeth's lack of schooling, poor hygiene, and the children's unmet medical needs, such as J.D.L.S.'s untreated thrush and heart murmur.

Elizabeth later disclosed ongoing domestic violence from Eric, including physical abuse in the children's presence, and expressed that Eric restricted her access to personal care and schooling due to jealousy. Despite her efforts to escape to Oklahoma and New Mexico, Elizabeth returned to Eric multiple times. Eric’s family denied the allegations of domestic violence and drug use, though Eric tested positive for drugs. On September 14, following an adversary proceeding, the court determined the children were at risk and appointed the Department as temporary managing conservator, citing immediate danger and substantial risk if the children were returned to their parents. The Department outlined service plans for the parents to potentially regain custody.

Plans were reviewed and signed by the parents, becoming part of the trial court's order. While in CPS care, Elizabeth and her children resided at the Children’s Home in Lubbock, Texas, where she received services and attended high school. In May 2011, after being dropped off at school by CPS, Elizabeth left with a stranger, picked up her children, and was later found wandering a store with them. CPS returned her to the Children’s Home after she expressed frustration with their care. In September 2011, Elizabeth assaulted a fellow resident, threatened suicide, was arrested, and subsequently released on bond. After the incident, the Children’s Home refused her return, but CPS offered her another placement, which she declined upon turning eighteen, opting instead to live with her grandmother and later her aunt in Oklahoma. Following her departure, her visitation with her children decreased significantly, with her last visit occurring roughly one year before the April 2012 trial.

Eric's compliance with his plan was also lacking; he failed to notify his caseworker of address changes, did not complete required drug tests, assessments, or programs, and had inconsistent visitation with his children. His caseworker noted concerns regarding his unstable employment and living conditions, along with suspicions of domestic abuse in another CPS case.

After Elizabeth's departure, her children were placed in a foster home where they were reported to be thriving and in an adoptive placement. On May 1, 2012, the trial court issued its Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship and Order of Termination.

The trial court concluded that Elizabeth and Eric (1) knowingly placed their children in harmful environments that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, (2) engaged in conduct that exposed the children to individuals who posed similar risks, (3) constructively abandoned the children, and (4) failed to adhere to a court order outlining necessary actions for regaining custody. The court determined that terminating the parent-child relationship was in the children's best interest. 

In termination proceedings, the petitioner must prove one statutory ground for termination and demonstrate that it serves the child's best interest, adhering to a clear and convincing standard of proof. The court assesses evidence favorably towards the trial court's findings and disregards evidence that could be reasonably disbelieved. The standards for reviewing both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence are outlined, emphasizing that a reasonable fact finder should be able to form a firm belief in the allegations. The trial court specifically found that the parents knowingly endangered their children’s well-being through their actions and decisions.

“Endanger” refers to exposing someone to loss or injury, and it encompasses more than mere threats or poor family environments. Evidence of endangerment to a child can be inferred from a parent's misconduct, which does not need to be directed at the child or occur in their presence. This misconduct may include actions taken before the child's birth or after their removal from the home. 

Subsection (D) emphasizes examining the child's environment for potential dangers that the parent is aware of but disregards, including inappropriate or abusive conduct by individuals in the child's home. Termination of parental rights can be based on a single act of endangerment under this subsection. 

Subsection (E) requires evidence of a direct link between a parent's conduct and the endangerment of the child's physical or emotional well-being, necessitating a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident. 

Both subsections relate to endangerment but differ in focus: (D) addresses the child's living environment, while (E) looks at the parent's conduct over time. The fact finder may infer future endangerment based on past behaviors, and conditions that create instability and uncertainty for the child are also considered harmful.

In a specific case, Elizabeth's uncooperative behavior during a CPS investigation, her unstable living situation, lack of education, and inadequate care for her infant son, who had health issues, highlighted potential endangerment to the child’s well-being.

J.D.L.S. and J.A.S. were not receiving medical treatment or immunizations. J.A.S. displayed poor hygiene, and the mother intended to flee the state. She reported to CPS that Eric isolated her, denying her proper hygiene and education, and she had experienced ongoing physical abuse from him, including incidents reported to the police during her pregnancy. Despite multiple attempts to escape his abuse by moving between states, she returned to Eric with her children several times. After being placed in CPS care, she became frustrated with the requirements for her children's care, fled without a safety plan, and later assaulted a housemate and threatened suicide. Following her release from jail, she abandoned her children and moved to Oklahoma, failing to engage with required services for over a year. Her repeated return to Eric created an environment endangering her children's well-being, particularly given their young age and her lack of parenting skills. Although she showed some progress in CPS care, her eventual decision to flee and return to an abusive environment led to further endangerment. There is legally sufficient evidence to terminate her parental rights based on her actions and mental instability. Eric, as the father, also contributed to the children’s endangerment through his domestic violence and failure to complete counseling services, which, alongside his history of abusive behavior and drug use, suggests a likelihood of continued violent behavior. Drug use negatively impacts parenting abilities and further establishes an endangering conduct.

Illegal drug use by a parent can support the termination of parental rights under section 161.001(1)(E) due to the potential risks posed to a child's well-being. In this case, Eric's admission of drug use prior to the trial and his refusal to take a drug test allowed the trial court to infer ongoing substance abuse. Such behavior during a termination suit indicates endangerment to the child's physical or emotional health. The evidence presented by the Department was legally and factually sufficient to support the conclusion that both Eric and Elizabeth knowingly endangered their children’s well-being. While only one statutory ground is necessary for termination, the court chose not to address additional grounds under sections 161.001(1)(N) and (O). 

In evaluating the best interest of the children, clear and convincing evidence is required. Although there is a presumption favoring the preservation of the parent-child relationship, the primary focus remains on the child's best interest, which includes considerations like their desires, emotional and physical needs, danger levels, and the capabilities of potential custodians. The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Holley v. Adams outlines several factors to assess, although not all need to be proven for termination. Overall, the existing evidence supported the trial court’s judgment regarding the termination of Eric’s parental rights.

Elizabeth contends that the evidence regarding the children's best interests was insufficient, lacking expert testimony on their emotional and physical needs and any indication that a less drastic alternative would suffice or that continued contact with her would pose a danger. Eric argues similarly, stating that he has turned his life around just months before the trial by serving jail time, partially completing his service plan, securing stable employment, and renting a house. The court, however, found the evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s determination of the children's best interests. It noted the high likelihood of instability in the children's lives if they remained with either parent, contrasting this with their current situation in a foster home where they are thriving and have their needs met. The trial court could reasonably conclude that terminating parental rights was in the children's best interest based on this evidence. Consequently, Elizabeth's issues are overruled, as well as Eric’s, and the trial court’s termination order is affirmed.