Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
C.S. was eight years old at trial. His father had been incarcerated for almost five years of the child’s life after pleading guilty in Georgia to statutory rape and later violating sex-offender registration requirements. During his periods outside prison, Father saw C.S. twice and contributed only $25 toward his support.
Mother and her husband sought termination so that the husband, who had been part of C.S.’s life since the child was four, could adopt him. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on multiple statutory grounds and found that termination was in C.S.’s best interest. Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that Father’s Georgia statutory-rape conviction supported termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(L). The Georgia offense—sexual intercourse with a person under 16—contained elements substantially similar to Texas indecency with a child. The conviction established the victim’s qualifying age, and evidence that she became pregnant and gave birth permitted an inference of serious emotional or psychological injury. Father offered no evidence rebutting that inference.
Because one predicate ground was sufficient, the court did not address Father’s challenges to the other statutory grounds. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the best-interest finding, emphasizing Father’s lengthy incarceration, minimal contact and financial support, unfulfilled promises, lack of a stable home or child-focused plan, and the stable home and prospective adoption offered by Mother and her husband. The court affirmed the termination order.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction under another state’s law may support termination when that offense has elements substantially similar to a qualifying Texas offense.
- Father’s Georgia statutory-rape conviction, together with the resulting pregnancy and birth, permitted an inference that the minor victim suffered serious emotional or psychological injury.
- Once one predicate ground and the best-interest finding were supported by sufficient evidence, the court did not need to review the remaining termination grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Texas courts compare an out-of-state conviction with Texas offenses when applying section 161.001(b)(1)(L). It also confirms that a qualifying conviction and its circumstances may support an inference of serious injury even without separate direct evidence of trauma, subject to the parent’s opportunity to rebut that inference.
For best-interest review, the opinion shows that courts may weigh a parent’s prolonged absence, negligible support, inconsistent contact, and lack of future plans against the stability and permanence offered by a prospective adoptive parent.