| CPS = Child Protective Services; cases now litigated in name of Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (TDFPS or Texas DFPS); Also see --> Austin DFPS cases (Third Court of Appeals) Appeals from Texas DFPS suits seeking termination of parental rights (Austin, TX) Terminology: child abuse, child neglect | best interest of child | parenting skills | parenting plan | drugs use | best interest factors | parenting plan | relinquishment | appointment of sole managing conservator (SMC). Other type of termination: --> Termination of employment In Holley v. Adams, the Texas Supreme Court provided a nonexclusive list of factors that the trier of fact in a termination case may use in determining the best interest of the child. 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors include: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, and the Department need not prove all factors as a condition precedent to parental termination. In re C.H., 89 S. W.3d at 27; Adams v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 236 S.W.3d 271, 280 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Nevertheless, termination of the parent-child relationship is not justified when the evidence shows that a parent’s failure to provide a more desirable degree of care and support of the child is due solely to misfortune or the lack of intelligence or training, and not to indifference or malice. Clark v. Dearen, 715 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ). RECENT APPELLATE CASES FROM HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS (IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF OPINION RELEASE DATE Newsom v. Brazoria County Child Protective Services (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 25, 2010)(Alcala) (termination of parental rights appeal, ineffective assistance of counsel claim overruled) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Elsa Alcala Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Higley 01-09-00447-CV Helen Newsom v. Brazoria County Child Protective Services, a Unit of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County Trial Court Judge: Hon. K. Randal Hufstetler Valencia v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010)(Jennings) (termination of father's parental rights based on prior criminal conduct reversed, ineffective assistance of counsel) Appellant, Joe Lewis Valencia, challenges the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his minor child. In three issues, Valencia contends that his court-appointed attorney’s performance at trial “was so patently deficient that [he] was denied any meaningful assistance of counsel altogether” and the evidence presented against him at trial, as revealed in a five and one-half page trial transcript, is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that he had endangered the child and that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. We reverse that portion of the decree terminating the parent-child relationship between Valencia and the child. REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jennings Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp 01-08-00345-CV Joe Lewis Valencia v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 313th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Pat Shelton In Interest of KLAC (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Boyce) (termination of parental rights affirmed, ineffective assistance of counsel claim rejected) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce Before 14-08-00960-CV In the Interest of K.L.A.C., D.D.C., and S.L.H.C Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Michael H. Schneider Valencia v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2009)(Jennings)(termination reversed) Appellant challenges the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his minor child. In three issues, Valencia contends that his court-appointed attorney’s performance at trial “was so patently deficient that [he] was denied any meaningful assistance of counsel altogether” and the evidence presented against him at trial, as revealed in a five and one-half page trial transcript, is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that he endangered the child and that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. We reverse that portion of the decree terminating the parent-child relationship between Valencia and V.V. REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jennings Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp 01-08-00345-CV Joe Lewis Valencia v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 313th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Pat Shelton In Interest of CW (pdf) (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 10, 2009)(Boyce) Appellant appeals a final order terminating her parental rights to her child D.G.[1] After a bench trial, the trial court (1) appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) as sole managing conservator of appellant’s four children, C.W. Jr., I.S., E.R., and D.G.; and (2) involuntarily terminated the parent-child relationship between appellant and D.G. In four issues, appellant argues that (1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court’s judgment exceeded the scope of the pleadings; (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove that appellant knowingly placed or knowingly allowed D.G. to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered her physical or emotional well-being; and (4) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove that termination of the parent-child relationship between appellant and D.G. was in the best interest of D.G. We affirm. AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Boyce 14-09-00306-CV In the Intererst of C.W., Jr., I.S., E.R., & D.G Appeal from 306th District Court of Galveston County Trial Court Judge: Janis Louise Yarbrough Hines v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 3, 2009)(Radack) (termination of parental rights affirmed) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Bland and Massengale 01-08-00045-CV Larry Wayne Hines v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Smith v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 3, 2009)(Hanks)(termination of parent's rights) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland 01-09-00173-CV Deshann Smith a/k/a Cajuanna Peterson v. Department of Family and Protective 01-09- 00390-CV Deshann Smith a/k/a Cajuanna Peterson v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County In Interest of JJC (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 17, 2009)(Boyce) (termination of parental rights) The mother of three children and the father of one of the children appeal the termination of their respective parental rights. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that termination of parental rights is in each child’s best interest, and the parents’ remaining challenges are waived, we affirm. AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce Before Justices Anderson and Boyce 14-08-01074-CV In the Interest of J.J.C. 14-08-01091-CV In the Interest of K.J.S. 14-08-01129-CV In the Interest of J.J.R. Appeal from 311th District Court of Harris County Trial Judge: Doug C. Warne In Interest of MG (pdf) (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 17, 2009)(Hedges) Appellant, “Jane Doe,” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to M.G. based on trial court findings that: (1) appellant failed to comply with provisions of the court’s prior orders establishing actions necessary for the return of the child after removal for abuse or neglect, and (2) termination was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, appellant contends that there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the court’s findings and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Sullivan 14-09-00136-CV In the Interest of M.G. Appeal from 306th District Court of Galveston County Trial Court Judge: Janis Louise Yarbrough In Interest of ARB (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 27, 2009)(Yates) (termination of parental rights affirmed, physical abuse, child's best interest analysis) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates Before Justices Brock Yates, Frost and Brown 14-08-00452-CV In the Interest of A.R.B., C.J.T, and A.J. Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County Trial Court Judge: Eric Andell In Interest of KLG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 15, 2009) (trial court’s frivolousness finding and final decree terminating parental rights affirmed) AFFIRMED: Per Curiam Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Sullivan 14-09-00403-CV In the Interest of K.L.G. aka C.G., a child Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Michael H. Schneider Aranda v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 15, 2009)(Higley) (termination of parental rights appeal, frivolousness finding) AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Higley Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp 01-09-00058-CV Ernesto Aranda v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Phillips In Interest of R.S. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009)(per curiam) (termination of parental rights affirmed)(termination grounds and best interest of child factors, ineffective assistance of counsel claim rejected where client did not cooperate) AFFIRMED: Per Curiam Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Sullivan 14-08-01013-CV In the Interest of R.S. Appeal from 310th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Lisa A. Millard Mann v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 17, 2009)(Radack) (termination of parental rights reversed, conservatorship decision affirmed) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT IN PART, REVERSE TC JUDGMENT IN PART, AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Taft and Sharp 01-08-01004-CV Stephanie Mann v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Phillips In Interest of XCB (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 30, 2009)(Subst. op. by Anderson) (termination of parental rights, intervenor, effect of paternity testing, Holley v. Adams best interest factors), appointment of DFPS as sole managing conservator) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Anderson Before Justices Anderson, Guzman and Boyce 14-08-00851-CV In the Interest of X.C.B., aka X.C, I.C.B., aka I.C., S. B.C., J.W.C AKA J. W. W. Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER Johnson v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 23, 2009)(Bland)I(termination of parental rights, constructive abandonment) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland Before Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp 01-08-00795-CV Dashonnon D. Johnson, Sr. v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Phillips In Interest of KLB (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 16, 2009)(Hedges) (termination of parental rights, prebirth conduct by mother, transfer of cases between courts of appeal and precedent to follow) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Frost 14-09-00061-CV In the Interest of K.L.B., a Child Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County Trial Court Judge: [Judge not identified on appellate docket] Walker v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 18, 2009)(Op. By Hanks) (appeal with dissenting opinion) (termination of parental rights, ineffective assistance of counsel claim) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland 01-07-00867-CV Frederick Dewayne Walker v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Phillips Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jennings in Walker v. DFPS termination case In Interest of JSG, NO. 14-08-00754-CV (Tex.App.- Houston May 7, 2009)(Hedges) (termination of parental rights, best interest factors, natural parent preference, parental presumption) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore 14-08-00754-CV In the Interest of J.S.G., and J.A.G Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: John Phillips In Interest of RCR (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 14, 2009)(Hedges) (termination of parental rights, constitutional issue waived, frivolousness) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore 14-08-00904-CV In the Interest of R.C.R., Jr., A Child Appeal from County Court at Law of Washington County Trial Court Judge: Matthew Alfred Reue Quiroz v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2009)(Alcala)(involuntary termination of parental rights) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala Before Justice Alcala 01-08-00548-CV Alejandra Quiroz v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Phillips In the Interest of SN, SMN, DAN (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 5, 2009)(Yates)(termination) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates Before Justices Brock Yates, Anderson and Brown 14-07-00161-CV In the Interest of S.N., S.M.N., and D.A.N., Children Appeal from 314th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: John Phillips Crowden v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2009)(Radack) (termination of parental rights, jury trial) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Nuchia and Higley 01-07-00025-CV Michelle Haufrect Crowden v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ronald R. Pope Fletcher v. DFPS (Tex.App.- Housotn [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2009)(Radack) (termination of parental rights) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack (Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Nuchia and Higley 01-08-00052-CV C.Y. Fletcher v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ronald Pope ALSO SEE 2008 APPEALS IN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS / CPS CASES |
| CPS and Termination of Parental Rights Cases from Houston Courts of Appeals Houston Opinions |
| The Texas Family Code requires that a statement of points on which a party intends to appeal be presented to the trial court within fifteen days after the signing of a final order terminating parental rights. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.405 (b). The Code further provides that an appellate court is to consider only those issues presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of points. Id. § 263.405(i). The issue in this parental rights termination case is whether the failure to follow these procedural rules in the Family Code precludes appellate review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In Interest of JOA, No. 08-0379 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Medina)(termination of parental rights appeal, constitutionality of statement of points requirement for appeal) IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.A., T.J.A.M., T.J.M., AND C.T.M., CHILDREN; from Collingsworth County; 7th district (07-07-00042-CV, 262 SW3d 7, 02-25-08) The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment, affirms the judgment as modified, and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. Supreme Court says that omission of statement of points from appellate record was not appellant's fault and that court of appeals should have reviewed the merits of the mother's appeal from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights. In Interest of K.C.B., a Child, No. 07-1068 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008) (per curiam) (parents right to appeal in termination of parental rights case, procedural requisites for appeal) Supreme Court agrees with Houston Court of Appeals that reversal of conservatorship to CPS along with termination order was proper in the absence of independent grounds to take children from parent In the Interest of DNC No. 07-0621 (Tex. 2008)(child protection, DFPS suit, termination of parental rights, natural parent presumption, award to conservatorship to child protection agency reversed along with termination of parental rights) N THE INTEREST OF D.N.C., A CHILD; from Harris County; 1st district (01-04-01232-CV, 227 S.W.3d 799, 12/21/06) In Interest of J.A.J., No. 07-0511 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(O'Neill)(termination of parental rights, conservatorship to CPS not appealed) In Interest of R.R. and S.J.S., No. 06-0460 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam)(termination of parental rights) In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) In Interest of H.R.M., No. 06-0270 (Tex. Dec. 1 2006)(per curiam)(termination of parental rights) Opinion on Remand to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals In the Interest of H.R.M. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 8, 2007)(Justice Seymore) This case is on remand from the Texas Supreme Court for consideration of a single issue. The issue is whether the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that the parental rights of William Keith M. ["Keith"] to his biological daughter, H.R.M., should be terminated under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(Q), which provides "parental rights may be terminated if the parent has "knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's: (i) conviction of an offense; and (ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition."See In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 107 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 161.001(1)(Q)) |