law-Holley-v-Adams-factors | best interest of the child, children | child custody SACPR litigation | termination of
parental rights appeals | grandparents suit to intervene for custody and/or access to child | SAPCR
interventions |
A strong presumption exists that a child’s best interests are served by maintaining the parent-child relationship.
In re L.M., 104 S.W.3d 642, 647 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The same evidence of acts or
omissions used to establish grounds for termination under section 161.001(1) may be probative in determining
the best interests of the child. Id. (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002)). The Texas Supreme Court
has provided a nonexclusive list of factors that the fact finder in a termination case may use to determine the
best interest of the child. Holley v. Adams, 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 there is no requirement that the Department prove all factors as a condition precedent
to parental termination. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27; Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.
W.3d 608, 618–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).
The Holley v. Adams Case: THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
[child custody & visitation, CPS child protection and termination suits]
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 at 371–
72. 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
there is no requirement that the Department 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.). 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).
Courts may use the following nonexhaustive list of factors to determine the children's best interest: (1) the
desires of the children; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the future; (3) the
emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individual
seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist the individual to promote the best interest of the children;
(6) the plans for the children 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, or potential conservator, that may
indicate that the existing relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the
potential conservator. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976).
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., and J.W.C AKA J. W. W.
Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
Appellant also contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination
is in S.J.'s best interest. There is a strong presumption that preserving the parent-child relationship is in the
best interest of a child. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 846 (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.131(b),
153.191, 153.252 (Vernon 2008)). The Department bears the burden to rebut this presumption. Id. (citing Hall
v. Harris County Child Welfare Unit, 533 S.W.2d 121, 122- 23 (Tex. Civ. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, no
writ)).
In re SJ, No. 14-07-00785-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 24, 2009)(Seymore)
(termination of parental rights)
The Texas Supreme Court has compiled non-exclusive factors to consider when determining the best interest
of a child including (1) the child's desires, (2) the child's emotional and physical needs 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 which may indicate that the existing
parent-child relationship is not proper, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Holley v.
Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); see In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 846. In this case, the record
contains evidence pertinent to all factors except the first because S.J. was too young to express her desires.
We will discuss together the evidence pertaining to these factors, rather than divide our discussion according to
each factor, because the evidence is overlapping relative to the various factors.
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE