Terminating a person’s parental rights is a serious consequence. In Texas, a trial court must find clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. To meet this high standard of proof, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) will introduce evidence that termination is in a child’s best interests. However, if the Department fails to offer clear and convincing evidence, the court cannot terminate the parent’s rights. A recent Texas appellate case demonstrates the high burden of proof courts require to terminate parental rights.
Facts of the Case
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services first removed the Mother’s children from her care when the Department found them living in a U-Haul, and the Mother admitted to recently using methamphetamine. The Department placed the children with their Father, who gave the Department misleading information about their care. The Father left one child with their adult sibling, even though the Department told him not to because the sibling used drugs. The child was later found walking alone on the highway, and the Father tested positive for illegal substances. The Department then sought to terminate both parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, the caseworker testified that the Mother did not participate in a service plan to reunite with her children. She further testified that the children were exposed to drugs while in their Father’s care. The Father was also convicted of child endangerment during the case and received an eight-year sentence. The trial court terminated the Mother and Father’s parental rights. The Mother and Father appealed.
The Decision
On appeal, the Mother and Father both argued there was insufficient evidence to terminate their rights. The appeals court agreed with the Mother, reversing the trial court’s decision. First, the court noted that the Department did not submit the service plan into evidence and did not specify the services the Mother had to undertake. In Texas, to terminate parental rights due to a failure to comply with a service plan, the plan must establish the specific actions necessary for reunification. Because there was no evidence of the service plan, the trial court could not have considered whether it was sufficiently specific. The court further found that the trial court should not have terminated the Mother’s parental rights based on her drug use. The Department had to prove that the parent both used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the child’s safety and failed to complete a court-ordered substance treatment program or relapsed after completing the program. Here, the appeals court found no evidence that the Department ordered the Mother to complete a drug treatment program. The court thus reversed the trial court’s decision to terminate the Mother’s parental rights.