Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved after reports of domestic violence and substance abuse. For nearly two years, it provided family-based safety services intended to prevent the children’s removal. Father, however, repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine, failed to complete drug treatment and domestic-violence classes, and did not achieve sustained sobriety. The Department sought removal after Father was incarcerated and Mother could not comply with her safety plan or provide stable housing and supervision.
Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights. As to the youngest child, M.A.B., the court relied on Father’s failure to acknowledge or legitimate paternity and alternatively found statutory termination grounds and best interest. As to S.L.B. and M.S.B., the court found statutory grounds based on endangerment and failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan, along with clear and convincing evidence that termination was in their best interests. Father appealed only the best-interest findings.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination as to M.A.B. without reviewing the challenged best-interest finding. Father did not challenge the independent finding that he failed to legitimate his paternity under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(1), a ground that does not require a best-interest finding. The court therefore accepted that unchallenged ground as valid, notwithstanding Father’s trial testimony that he was M.A.B.’s father.
As to S.L.B. and M.S.B., the court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest findings. The record showed persistent methamphetamine use, refusal to submit to 24 requested drug tests, incomplete treatment and services, unresolved domestic-violence concerns, criminal conduct, unstable housing, and an absence of verified stable employment. The court also emphasized the children’s improvement after removal and Father’s inability to demonstrate that he could meet their physical and emotional needs, particularly M.S.B.’s substantial medical needs arising from Prader-Willi syndrome.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting termination; an unchallenged failure-to-legitimate finding required affirmance as to M.A.B.
- Father’s continued drug use, missed testing, incomplete services, domestic violence, criminal activity, and instability supported the best-interest findings for the two older children.
- Father’s consistent visits and bond with the children did not outweigh evidence that returning them to his care would expose them to danger and unmet needs.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the appellate consequences of failing to attack every independent termination ground. A parent’s challenge to a best-interest finding cannot obtain reversal when an unchallenged ground independently supports termination without requiring such a finding.
It also illustrates how courts evaluate best interest from the entire record, including a parent’s historical conduct, compliance with services, ability to maintain sobriety and stability, and capacity to address a child’s specialized medical needs. The lack of a finalized adoptive placement did not defeat the findings where the evidence otherwise supported a firm conviction that termination served the children’s best interests.