Summary
This memorandum opinion concerns an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental rights of a mother and father to two children in Montgomery County, Texas. The parents challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding and raised additional procedural and conservatorship issues. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order of termination as to both parents.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother's motion to retain the case on the docket and extend the dismissal deadline.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting the alleged father's motion for an extension and severing his termination proceeding from Mother's and Father's case.
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights was in the children's best interest.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing the Department as the children's permanent managing conservator after terminating Mother's parental rights.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request for additional time because she had nearly a year to complete her service plan, and she failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for an extension.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by severing the alleged father's termination case and granting him an extension.
- Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing the Department as the children's managing conservator after terminating Mother's parental rights.
Key quotations
“However, it is insufficient to simply assert that a parent needs more time to complete a family service plan when the parent has had sufficient opportunity to perform the service plan but failed to do so.” (64)
“Additionally, Mother has failed to demonstrate harm that resulted from Alleged Father’s severance and extension.” (68)
“As the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony, the jury could reasonably conclude that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental right is in the best interests of May and James.” (72)
“If the court terminates the parent-child relationships with respect to both parents or to the only living parent, the court shall appoint a suitable, competent adult, the Department of Family and Protective Services, or a licensed child-placing agency as managing conservator of the child.” (74)
Factual background
The children were removed after evidence showed that Mother and Father exposed them to methamphetamine and other substance abuse, domestic violence, dangerous and unsanitary trailer conditions, inadequate supervision, and inadequate medical care for May's asthma. The parents made some progress during the Department's case, including obtaining housing and employment, but the evidence showed continued substance use, inconsistent treatment participation, unstable circumstances, and failure to complete portions of their service plans. The children were placed with Father's brother and a close family friend, where the evidence showed they were safe, healthy, and thriving.
Procedural history
The Department filed a petition in May 2024 seeking termination of Mother's rights to both children and Father's rights to James. Following a jury trial in May 2025, the jury found statutory predicate grounds and that termination was in the children's best interest, and selected the Department as managing conservator. The trial court entered termination orders, and the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.