Opinion
No. 11-15-00184-CV
02-04-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF J.N., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 7734-CX
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and father of J.N. Both parents timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, the parents present one issue in which they challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support termination. We affirm.
Termination Findings and Standards
The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b) (West Supp. 2015). To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient in a parental termination case, we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we give due deference to the finding and determine whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations against the parent. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25-26 (Tex. 2002). To terminate parental rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)-(T) and that termination is in the best interest of the child. FAM. § 161.001(b).
After the final hearing in this case, the trial court found that the mother and the father had committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)—that found in subsection (O). Specifically, the trial court found that each parent had failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child, who had been in the managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent for abuse or neglect. The trial court also found, pursuant to Section 161.001(b)(2), that termination of the parents' parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. The parents do not challenge the best interest finding.
Analysis
The record shows that the Department first became involved with the parents in this case in December 2013. The mother and the father had gotten into a heated argument in which the father had punched the mother numerous times, broken a lamp over her head, choked her, and told her that she was going to die. J.N., along with another child who is not part of this appeal, was in the home during this assault. The Department also believed that the parents were using drugs in the home. At the beginning of this case, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The child was removed based upon the Department's concern for the child's safety under the circumstances. At trial, the mother admitted that she had used drugs for eight months prior to J.N.'s removal. The mother also testified that she and the father were "drug buddies."
As a result of J.N.'s removal, the trial court ordered the parents to complete various family services and notified them that full compliance was necessary for them to obtain the return of the child. The evidence at trial showed that the parents admittedly did not complete several of the required services and, thus, failed to comply with the trial court's order. On appeal, the parents argue that, even if they did fail to comply with the trial court's order, a finding under subsection (O) cannot be upheld because the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed due to abuse or neglect. To comply with subsection (O), the Department need not prove actual abuse or neglect of the child. In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2013). The court in E.C.R. held that "abuse or neglect" as used in subsection (O) "necessarily includes the risks or threats of the environment in which the child is placed." Id. The E.C.R. court determined that "placing the child's physical health or safety at substantial risk" is sufficient to support a finding of "abuse or neglect." Id. at 240. Based upon the supreme court's interpretation of the words "abuse or neglect" as used in subsection (O), we hold that J.N. was removed for "abuse or neglect."
The record contains clear and convincing evidence that J.N. was removed due to abuse or neglect. Testimony by the caseworker assigned to the parents' case and admissions by both the mother and the father showed that there was drug use by both parents and domestic violence within the home. We conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that J.N. was removed due to abuse or neglect.
The record also contains clear and convincing evidence that both parents failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for them to obtain the return of J.N. Clear and convincing evidence also reflected that J.N. had been removed due to abuse or neglect, or the risk thereof, and that she had been in the care of the Department for over nine months. Consequently, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding as to each parent under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O). We overrule the legal and factual sufficiency complaints presented by the mother and the father in their sole issue on appeal.
This Court's Ruling
We affirm the trial court's order of termination.
JOHN M. BAILEY
JUSTICE February 4, 2016 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.