In the Interest of J.C.D.Y. a/k/a J.Y., J.E.D.Y. a/k/a J.Y., M.M.D.Y. a/k/a M.Y., J.T.D.Y. a/k/a J.Y., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed an order terminating the mother’s parental rights to three children and modifying conservatorship of another child. The court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting predicate grounds for termination, the children’s best interests, and the trial court’s conservatorship determinations. The opinion is a memorandum opinion issued per curiam.

Holdings

1. Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Mother used marijuana in a manner that endangered the children's health or safety and continued to abuse a controlled substance after completing court-ordered substance-abuse treatment.
2. The court need not decide the sufficiency of the findings under sections 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O) because the section (P) finding was sufficient and the prior termination order already established the relevant section (D) and (E) findings as to Mike and Ivan.
3. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Jack, John, and Mark's best interest.
4. Mother lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator after the court affirmed termination of her parental rights.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that appointing Mother as Julie's managing conservator would significantly impair Julie's physical health or emotional development and by appointing Mary instead.

Questions Presented

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(P) and the requirements of section 161.004.
2. Whether the court needed to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination under sections 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O).
3. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother's parental rights to Jack, John, and Mark was in their best interest.
4. Whether Mother had standing to challenge the appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator after termination of her parental rights.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Mary as Julie's sole managing conservator rather than Mother.

Disposition

affirmed