T. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3035, 2014 WL 1060712, 431 S.W.3d 645 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a parental rights termination proceeding, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest, which is the paramount consideration and may outweigh a parent's proposed alternative placement with a relative. A parent's history of instability, criminal conduct, failure to complete court-ordered services, and lack of a bond with the child are probative evidence supporting a best-interest finding.
Facts:
- T.W.'s parental rights to A.R.W.'s older sister were terminated in 2011.
- Shortly after A.R.W. was born, T.W. placed her in the care of his sister (the paternal aunt), and T.W. never resided with or raised the child.
- In July 2012, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) removed A.R.W. from the paternal aunt's home due to allegations of drug abuse, neglectful supervision, and exposure to domestic violence and other dangerous individuals.
- The Department created a service plan for T.W., but he failed to complete its requirements, including parenting classes and therapy, and was inconsistent in his visitations, missing 20 of 41 scheduled visits.
- T.W. was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and was arrested twice during the pendency of the case, once for an outstanding warrant during which he threatened the arresting officer.
- Throughout the case, T.W. failed to provide financial or medical support for A.R.W.
- At the time of the termination trial, T.W. was incarcerated and did not have a known release date.
Procedural Posture:
- The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated proceedings to terminate T.W.'s parental rights to his child, A.R.W.
- A bench trial was held in the trial court.
- The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support termination under the Texas Family Code and that termination was in the best interest of A.R.W.
- The trial court entered a judgment terminating T.W.'s parental rights.
- T.W. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that terminating T.W.'s parental rights is in the best interest of his child, A.R.W.?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Guadalupe Rivera
Yes. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of T.W.'s parental rights is in the best interest of A.R.W. The court's analysis, guided by the non-exhaustive Holley factors, demonstrates that termination is warranted. A.R.W. expressed a desire to remain with her foster family, where she lives with her biological sister and is stable and happy. T.W.'s history of criminal conduct, incarceration, failure to complete his service plan, and failure to establish a bond with A.R.W. show he is unable to meet the child's emotional and physical needs and poses a danger to her. His proposed plan to place A.R.W. with her paternal aunt is unrealistic, as the aunt was previously deemed an inappropriate placement by the Department due to her own criminal history, drug use, and instability. T.W.'s excuses for his failures were not credible, and his acts and omissions indicate that the parent-child relationship is not a proper one.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle that the 'best interest of the child' is the paramount consideration in termination proceedings, even when it conflicts with a parent's desire to place the child with another family member. The court's detailed application of the Holley factors serves as a guide for how to weigh a parent's entire course of conduct, including criminal history, instability, and failure to engage with remedial services. The decision establishes that a court is not required to consider alternatives to termination, such as relative placement, when the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide a safe and stable environment and a permanent, stable adoptive home is available.
