Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mother T.R. and Father P.M. appealed an amended final order terminating their parental rights to A.M., their autistic child born in 2021. This was the family’s second Department case. The record described domestic violence, substance use, criminal conduct, mental-health concerns, and repeated contact between the parents despite court orders and protective restrictions.
The Department again removed A.M. and placed her with her maternal grandmother. Although Mother completed the services requested of her, the Department remained concerned about her continuing relationship with Father and her lack of candor about that relationship. After a two-day bench trial, the district court terminated both parents’ rights and appointed the Department permanent managing conservator.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the findings Mother challenged. The Department made reasonable efforts toward reunification by creating service plans, arranging evaluations, therapy, classes, drug testing, visitation, transportation, family meetings, and other services. Those efforts did not have to be ideal, and Mother’s continued contact with Father and lack of candor supported the trial court’s finding that a continuing danger remained.
The court also upheld the best-interest finding. Although evidence showed that Mother loved A.M., completed services, maintained housing, and could be attentive, other evidence showed continuing instability, domestic violence, disrupted autism services, and an inability to maintain separation from Father. Testimony that A.M. was thriving with her grandmother distinguished the case from one in which children deteriorated after removal. After independently reviewing Father’s appeal under Anders, the court found no arguable ground for appeal, affirmed the termination of his rights, and denied his counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Key Takeaways
- Completing a service plan does not compel reunification when evidence shows that the dangers prompting removal continue.
- Reasonable reunification efforts need not be perfect; courts evaluate them against the parent’s history, engagement, and conduct during the case.
- Evidence that a special-needs child was stable and thriving in a relative placement supported the best-interest finding.
Why It Matters
The decision explains how Texas courts assess the relatively new statutory requirement that the Department make reasonable efforts to return a child before termination while a continuing danger nevertheless remains. It also shows that unchallenged endangerment findings may carry substantial weight in reviewing continuing danger and best interest, even though they do not independently establish those elements.
The opinion further underscores that appellate review remains deferential to the trial judge’s credibility determinations, particularly when testimony conflicts over whether a parent has ended a dangerous relationship and can provide lasting stability for a child with special needs.