Holley v. Adams
1976 Tex. LEXIS 258, 544 S.W.2d 367, 20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 76 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Family Code § 15.02, involuntary termination of parental rights requires proof of both a specific statutory ground of parental fault and a separate finding that termination is in the best interest of the child; a finding of one without sufficient evidence of the other is inadequate to support termination.
Facts:
- David Adams and Nanci Holley married in 1965 and had a son, David Christopher, in 1966.
- The couple separated in 1968, at which point Nanci Holley voluntarily gave physical custody of their son to David Adams.
- In 1969, their divorce was finalized with a decree that awarded custody to David Adams but did not require Nanci Holley to pay child support.
- Shortly after the divorce, Holley was briefly hospitalized for depression and then moved to Seattle, Washington, where she has since resided.
- David Adams remarried in 1970 and provided a stable home for his son.
- Between 1970 and 1975, Holley visited her son three times, sent approximately $100, maintained a health insurance policy for him, sent gifts, and made several offers to pay for his airfare to visit her, which were refused.
- During this time, Holley remarried, had another child (of whom she retained custody after a subsequent divorce), declared bankruptcy, and held a steady job.
- David Adams initiated the termination suit because he feared what would happen to his son if he were to die, wanting his current wife to raise the child instead of Holley.
Procedural Posture:
- David Adams filed a petition in a Texas trial court to terminate the parent-child relationship between his former wife, Nanci Adams Holley, and their son.
- The trial court ordered termination, finding that Holley had failed to support the child, had engaged in conduct that endangered the child's emotional well-being, and that termination was in the child's best interest.
- Nanci Holley, as appellant, appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings of failure to support and best interest.
- Nanci Holley then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Texas Family Code § 15.02, may a court terminate parental rights based on a parent's failure to support the child when there is no evidence that termination is in the child's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sam D. Johnson
No. Termination of parental rights cannot be based solely on a finding of parental fault, such as failure to support, without separate and sufficient evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. The Texas Family Code § 15.02 establishes a two-prong test requiring proof of both a specific parental act or omission listed in subdivision (1) and a finding that termination is in the child's best interest under subdivision (2). The court found no evidence that Nanci Holley's conduct endangered the child's emotional well-being. While the record supported the finding that she failed to support the child in accordance with her ability, this failure was deemed excusable because support was never court-ordered and the custodial parent, David Adams, never requested or wanted it. Critically, the court found no evidence that termination was in the child's best interest. In fact, the father’s own testimony indicated that the child had a positive relationship with his mother and that it was in the child's best interest to continue seeing her. Therefore, since the 'best interest' prong of the statutory test was not met, the termination order was improper.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the 'Holley factors,' a non-exhaustive list of considerations for determining the 'best interest of the child' in Texas termination and custody cases. The decision solidifies the principle that termination of parental rights requires strict scrutiny due to its constitutional dimensions. By mandating that both parental fault and the child's best interest be proven as independent elements, the court set a high evidentiary bar for severing the parent-child relationship, ensuring that a single parental failure cannot, by itself, justify such a drastic measure without a clear showing that it is what is best for the child.
Unlock the full brief for Holley v. Adams