Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with M.D., Jr. and the child’s mother shortly after their daughter, who has Down Syndrome, was born in 2018. The child was placed with foster parents that year. An initial termination order was reversed on appeal in 2021, and the parties later agreed to an order naming the Department permanent managing conservator and the parents possessory conservators.
After receiving reports that Father had physically and sexually assaulted Mother, the Department sought termination again. Following a bench trial, the district court terminated both parents’ rights, finding several statutory grounds and that termination served the child’s best interest. Father appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, the consideration of events predating the agreed order, the sufficiency of several termination grounds, and the Department’s reunification efforts. Mother did not appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that any error in admitting Mother’s statements to law enforcement was harmless because substantially similar evidence—including the Department caseworker’s affidavit and testimony and photographs of Mother’s injuries—was admitted without objection. Father inadequately briefed his broader challenge to the law-enforcement records, and the trial court could admit the 911 caller’s contemporaneous description of a fight as a present-sense impression.
The court also held that Section 161.004 did not bar consideration of conduct predating the March 2023 agreed order because the district court terminated Father’s rights under Section 161.001, not Section 161.004. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Father engaged in a pattern of violence toward Mother that endangered the child under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). Because one predicate ground was sufficient and Father did not challenge the best-interest finding, the court did not address the remaining termination grounds. It further upheld the reasonable-efforts finding based on the Department’s service plan, attempted relative placements, and efforts to arrange therapy and other services.
Key Takeaways
- Any error in admitting a parent’s hearsay statements may be harmless when substantially similar evidence enters the record without objection.
- A pattern of domestic violence can support an endangerment finding even when the violence was not directed at the child and did not occur in the child’s presence.
- A family service plan, attempted relative placements, and efforts to provide therapy and support can constitute reasonable reunification efforts.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces that Texas courts may consider parent-on-parent violence when determining whether a parent’s course of conduct endangers a child. Actual injury to the child is not required when the evidence establishes a substantial risk of harm.
It also highlights the importance of preserving specific evidentiary objections and demonstrating harm on appeal. Cumulative evidence admitted without objection can defeat an otherwise viable challenge to hearsay evidence.