Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved shortly after M.J.’s birth in October 2024. Mother reported that Father had been physically violent toward her throughout her pregnancy, used illegal drugs, and maintained an unsafe home. The Department removed M.J. and placed the child in foster care.
At trial, evidence showed domestic violence and drug use in the home. Father admitted using drugs, failed to submit to required drug testing or attend AA or NA meetings, did not fully comply with the Department’s service plans, and had limited contact with M.J. A jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Father endangered M.J. under Texas Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal presented no meritorious issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order. Conducting the specific review required for findings under subsections (D) and (E), the court held that the evidence sufficiently supported both grounds. Father’s repeated violence toward Mother, including during pregnancy, and the parents’ methamphetamine and marijuana use supported findings that M.J.’s environment and Father’s course of conduct endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
The court also held that a reasonable factfinder could determine termination was in M.J.’s best interest, noting that the child was thriving in a safe, loving, and stable foster placement. After independently reviewing the full record, the court found no arguable grounds for appeal and no reversible error. It deferred ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel’s continuing duties could include filing a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of domestic violence and illegal drug use supported termination under both the endangering-environment and endangering-conduct provisions.
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief in a parental-termination case must independently examine the record and specifically review findings under subsections (D) and (E) because those findings may affect parental rights concerning other children.
- The court affirmed the termination order but took no action on appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, citing counsel’s continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how domestic violence directed at the other parent and drug use within the home can establish statutory endangerment even without proof that the child suffered an actual injury. It also underscores the heightened appellate scrutiny given to subsection (D) and (E) findings because of their potential consequences in future termination proceedings.