Reported / Citable
Background
R.N. was removed from her parents after infancy feeding and weight-gain problems led to two hospitalizations. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services created safety and service plans, and later placed R.N. with the parents on a monitored return. That placement ended after Department workers reported cleanliness and household-safety concerns; an investigation into alleged neglect was ultimately classified as unable to determine.
A jury found that both parents endangered R.N., that termination was in R.N.’s best interest, and that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts but a continuing danger in the parents’ home prevented R.N.’s return. The trial court terminated both parents’ rights and appointed the Department permanent managing conservator.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the evidence was legally sufficient but factually insufficient to support the jury’s required findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(f): that the Department made reasonable efforts to return R.N. and that a continuing danger remained in the parents’ home.
The court concluded that the Department did not clearly tell the parents that Father’s juvenile sex-offender status created a reunification barrier, did not tailor the service plan to address that asserted danger, and did not refer services to remediate it. It also held that the evidence opposing a present continuing danger—from Father’s past conduct, the home’s condition, and R.N.’s feeding needs—was too substantial for a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that R.N. could not safely return. The court did not reach the endangerment or best-interest findings.
Key Takeaways
- Termination requires clear and convincing proof of both reasonable reunification efforts and a continuing danger preventing return under Section 161.001(f).
- Routine service plans and referrals may be insufficient when the Department does not clearly identify the barrier to reunification or provide services directed at it.
- A parent’s registered sex-offender status is not, by itself, proof of a present continuing danger to the child.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that the Department must give parents clear, actionable notice of what must change to reunify the family. A termination case cannot rest on an unstated expectation that parents separate or otherwise address an alleged risk that the Department never expressly identified or serviced.
The court reversed the final termination order, remanded all issues for a new trial, vacated the Department’s permanent managing conservatorship, and reinstated its temporary managing conservatorship pending further proceedings.