Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services began removal proceedings after infant J.R. repeatedly failed to gain adequate weight while in his mother’s care. Despite medical providers’ feeding instructions and requests for feeding logs, Mother missed appointments, failed to maintain the requested records, and was unable to prevent J.R.’s condition from worsening from failure to thrive and moderate starvation to severe starvation. J.R. gained weight when hospital staff administered his feedings.
After an initial removal, the trial court returned J.R. to Mother, but concerns continued over missed medical appointments, improper feeding, inadequate formula, housing without electricity or air conditioning, and Mother’s failure to participate in services. J.R. was ultimately placed with a foster family, where he attended medical, speech, and physical-therapy appointments and, according to the caseworker, “blossomed.” Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (N) and found termination to be in J.R.’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. Mother did not challenge the predicate statutory grounds for termination; her sole appellate issue was whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Reviewing the entire record under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, the court held that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in J.R.’s best interest.
The court relied on evidence that Mother repeatedly failed to meet J.R.’s medical and nutritional needs, missed approximately eighty or more visits while attending only four, did not complete offered services, and did not maintain stable housing or regular contact with the Department. It also considered evidence that Mother displayed little engagement during visits and lacked a demonstrated maternal bond with J.R. By contrast, J.R. was thriving and bonded with his foster family, which intended to adopt him and had plans for his health and education.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s repeated inability to follow medical instructions or meet a young child’s nutritional needs can strongly support a best-interest finding.
- Missed visits, limited engagement, unstable housing, and failure to use transportation, therapy, and parenting resources may demonstrate an inability to provide consistent care.
- For a child too young to express a preference, evidence that the child is thriving and bonded in a prospective adoptive home may serve as a proxy for the child’s desires.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Texas appellate courts apply the Holley best-interest factors when reviewing termination findings for factual sufficiency. The inquiry considers the entire record, including both the circumstances leading to removal and the parent’s conduct while reunification services are available.
The opinion also underscores the limited scope of an appeal that challenges only best interest. Because Mother did not contest the trial court’s findings under subsections (D) and (N), the appellate court addressed whether the evidence supported the separate best-interest element and concluded that it did.