In re L.C.

13 Citing cases

  1. In re Q.M.-K.

    No. 04-24-00150-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2024)

    Therefore, we will consider Mother's sufficiency argument as to subsections (D) and (E) even though she does not challenge termination under subsections (O) (failure to comply with the provisions of a court-ordered service plan) and (P) (use of a controlled substance in a manner that endangers health or safety of the child). See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (addressing parents' sufficiency challenges to subsections (D) and (E) even though they did not challenge all grounds upon which termination could be supported)

  2. In re E.S.P.

    No. 04-23-00956-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 17, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, we will consider Mother and Father's sufficiency argument as to subsections (D) and (E) even though they do not challenge termination under subsections (N) (constructive abandonment of child in Department conservatorship for not less than six months), (O) (failure to comply with the provisions of a court-ordered service plan), and (P) (use of a controlled substance in a manner that endangers health or safety of the child). See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (addressing parents' sufficiency challenges to subsections (D) and (E) even though they did not challenge all grounds upon which termination could be supported).

  3. In re A.T.

    No. 04-23-00689-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 10, 2024)

    Therefore, we will consider M.R.'s sufficiency argument as to subsection (E) even though she does not challenge termination under subsections (O) (failure to comply with the provisions of a court-ordered service plan) and (P) (use of a controlled substance in a manner that endangers health or safety of the child). See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (addressing parents' sufficiency challenges to subsections (D) and (E) even though they did not challenge all grounds upon which termination could be supported).

  4. J. B. M. H. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

    No. 03-22-00661-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2023)

    (mem. op.) (same); In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 8721, at *27 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); In re E.F.Z., No. 04-19-00169-CV, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 7800, at *3, *8-9 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 28, 2019, no pet.)

  5. In re J.J.V.M.M.

    No. 04-22-00405-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 7, 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Explaining that a best interest finding does not require proof of any particular factor

    Therefore, we will consider T.S.'s sufficiency argument as to subsections (D) and (E) even though she does not challenge termination under subsections (O) and (P). See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  6. In re J.A.R.R.

    No. 04-22-00184-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Therefore, we will consider Father's sufficiency argument as to subsection D even though he does not challenge termination under subsection O. See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  7. In re M.W.

    No. 02-21-00146-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 19, 2021)   Cited 8 times

    See, e.g., In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *8 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re K.J.G., No. 04-19-00102-CV, 2019 WL 3937278, at *7 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

  8. In re A.B.

    No. 04-21-00051-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 236-37 (Tex. 2019). Therefore, we will consider appellant's sufficiency argument as to subsection E even though he does not challenge termination under subsections N and O. See In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (addressing parents' sufficiency challenges to subsections D and E even though they did not challenge all grounds upon which termination could be supported). Subsection E allows a trial court to terminate a parent's rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent "engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child."

  9. In re S.T.

    No. 11-19-00363-CV (Tex. App. May. 18, 2020)   Cited 11 times

    However, we will nonetheless address the father's first and second issues because these issues may implicate due process. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2019) (addressing due process and due course of law with respect to appellate review of grounds (D) and (E) and holding that an appellate court must provide a detailed analysis if affirming the termination on either of these grounds); see also In re R.S.C., No. 09-19-00174-CV, 2019 WL 5996358, at *4-6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Nov. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (determining that it is appropriate to review challenges to (D) and (E) despite an unchallenged finding as to (M)); In re L.C., No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reviewing (D) and (E), despite a finding based on (M)). With respect to the first issue, we note that the Department concedes that the evidence is insufficient with respect to subsection (D) because the evidence failed to show that the father was aware that S.T. even existed, that S.T. was his child, and that S.T. had been placed in an endangering environment.

  10. In re Interest of L.C.L.

    599 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that subsections D and E require "a causal connection between [a parent's] drug use and the alleged endangerment"

    See, e.g.,In re C.H. , No. 09-19-00170-CV, 2019 WL 5243162, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 17, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re L.C. , No. 12-19-00137-CV, 2019 WL 4727826, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re C.D.L.R. , No. 13-19-00008-CV, 2019 WL 2608776, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); A. C. v. Texas Dep't of Family & Protective Services , 577 S.W.3d 689, 699 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, pet. denied) ; In re N.J.H. , 575 S.W.3d 822, 832 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ; In re M.D.P. , No. 11-18-00146-CV, 2018 WL 6053931, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland Nov. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)