1

NO. 12-10-00173-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST § APPEAL FROM THE 

OF S.L., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

A CHILD § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stephanie Lee1appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. In one 

issue, Lee argues that the jury charge was improper. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Stephanie Lee is the mother of S.L., born April 12, 2007. Z.P. is S.L.’s father.2 The 

Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for 

protection of a child, for conservatorship, and for termination of the parent-child relationship 

between both parents and S.L. After a full adversarial hearing, the trial court appointed the 

Department as S.L.’s temporary managing conservator. 

A jury trial began on April 26, 2010. At the close of evidence, Lee objected to the jury 

charge, which included a broad form submission of the controlling question, i.e., whether the 

parent-child relationship should be terminated. She alleged that the jury should, instead, be asked 

to make a separate determination as to each ground for termination and then be asked whether 

 

1 We must use an alias, i.e. a person’s initials or a fictitious name, to refer to a minor, the minor’s parent, or 

other family member. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(a), (b)(2). S.L.’s mother’s initials match those of her daughter. To 

avoid confusion, we have adopted ―Stephanie Lee‖ as a pseudonym for S.L.’s mother.

2 On April 27, 2010, Z.P. signed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of 

parental rights to the Department of Family and Protective Services. Accordingly, on May 20, 2010, the trial court 

ordered the termination of his parent-child relationship with S.L. Z.P. is not a party to this appeal.
2

termination was in the child’s best interest. The trial court overruled Lee’s objection. In its 

charge, the trial court instructed the jury, in part, as follows:

For the parent-child relationship in this case to be terminated with respect to [Lee], the mother of 

[S.L.], it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the following events 

has occurred:

1. [Lee] has knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or 

surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

2. [Lee] has engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in 

conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

3. [Lee] has failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the 

actions necessary for the mother to obtain the return of the child who [has] been in the 

permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the [Department] for not less than nine 

months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or 

neglect of the child[.] 

Further, the jury charge stated that it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence 

that termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the best interest of the child, and 

listed some factors to consider in determining the best interest of the child. The charge then 

asked, ―Should the parent-child relationship between [Lee] and [S.L.] be terminated?‖ The jury 

answered, ―Yes.‖ In accordance with the jury’s verdict, the trial court found, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that Lee had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to 

support termination of her parental rights, and that termination of the parent-child relationship 

between Lee and S.L. was in the child=s best interest. Therefore, the trial court ordered that the 

parent-child relationship between Lee and S.L. be terminated. This appeal followed.

JURY CHARGE

In her sole issue, Lee argues that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling her 

objection to the broad form submission of the parental termination question. 

Complaints regarding the trial court’s charge are reviewed under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the trial court acts without reference to any guiding principles. Id. An 

error in a charge is reversible only if harmful, that is, if it caused or was reasonably calculated to 

cause, and probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment. Akin v. Santa Clara 
3

Land Co., Ltd., 34 S.W.3d 334, 345 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied). To determine 

whether an alleged error in the jury charge is harmful, we must consider the pleadings, the 

evidence presented at trial, and the charge in its entirety. Island Recreational Dev. Corp. v. 

Republic of Tex. Sav. Ass’n, 710 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex. 1986).

In all jury cases, the trial court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad 

form questions. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 277; E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 649. In E.B., the trial court 

submitted a broad form submission question to the jury in a parental rights termination suit. E.B., 

802 S.W.2d at 648; In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36, 48 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no pet.). The court 

of appeals reversed and remanded the cause, holding that multiple alternative submissions were 

proper. E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 648. In determining this issue, the Texas Supreme Court stated that 

the controlling question is ―whether the parent-child relationship between the mother and [the 

children] should be terminated, not what specific ground or grounds under [the family code] the 

jury relied on to answer affirmatively the questions posed.‖ See id. at 649. Thus, the supreme 

court held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by using a broad form submission to ask 

this controlling question in a termination case. See id. 

Here, as in E.B., the jury charge tracked the statutory language of the family code in the 

three grounds given to the jury as a possible basis for termination of Lee’s parental rights. See 

E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 648; In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d at 49; TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(D), 

(E), (O) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Additionally, the charge instructed the jury that it must also be 

proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship would 

be in the best interest of the child and listed ―some factors to consider in determining the best 

interest of the child.‖ See E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 648 (citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 

371-72 (Tex. 1976)); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(2) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Then, the trial 

court presented the controlling question to the jury by broad form submission, i.e., whether the 

parent-child relationship should be terminated. See E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 648-49.

Because the jury charge approved in E.B. is almost identical to that given in this case and

E.B. has not been overruled, we conclude that E.B. is binding on this court. See In re L.C., 145 

S.W.3d 790, 795 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (stating court bound by E.B. permitting 

submission of disjunctive question regarding a parent’s predicate acts or omissions); In re K.S., 

76 S.W.3d at 49 (concluding that court is bound to follow E.B. unless it is overruled or vitiated); 

In re M.C.M., 57 S.W.3d 27, 31 n.2 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) 
4

(determining that because an almost identical charge was considered and approved in E.B. which 

has not been overruled, court must follow E.B.); but see In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203, 218-219 

(Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003). Therefore, 

because the jury charge tracked the statutory language and then asked the controlling question, 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Lee’s objection to the jury charge and in 

submitting a broad form submission question to the jury. See E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 649; In re 

J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 129 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, Lee’s sole 

issue is overruled.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Lee’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BRIAN T. HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered February 23, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)