Source: http://benchbook.texaschildrenscommission.gov/library_item/gov.texaschildrenscommission.benchbook/84
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:38:07+00:00

Document:
Enter a final decree of conservatorship that names DFPS as the permanent managing conservator, with or without termination of parental rights.
Confirm that all parties have been served pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 102.009.
Special Issue: Although the Family Code attempts to provide finality for children by limiting the time for appeals and restricting direct or collateral attacks on a judgment of termination of parental rights, the Texas Legislature has also recognized the countervailing interest of the child’s family. Newly enacted Tex. Fam. Code § 162.0086 (Information Regarding Sibling Access) requires the Department to provide to each person seeking to adopt a child information regarding the right of a child’s sibling to file suit for access to that child under Tex. Fam. Code §102.0045 and Tex. Fam. Code § 153.551.
The court may set contested cases on written request of any party, or on the court’s own motion, with reasonable notice of not less than 45 days to the parties of the first setting for trial, or by agreement of the parties. Tex. R. Civ. P. 245.
DFPS has the burden to show that parental rights should be terminated or that DFPS or another non-parent should be appointed the permanent managing conservator of the child.
In a termination suit, DFPS has the burden to present clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Clear and convincing evidence means the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the State to support the parental unfitness finding in a termination case by clear and convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760 (1982); In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980).
Effective September 1, 2017, Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(c) prohibits courts from making findings and ordering termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b) based on evidence that the parent homeschooled the child, is economically disadvantaged, has been charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor (other than one listed in Title 5 or 6 of the Penal Code, or involves family violence as defined by Tex. Fam. Code § 71.004), administered low-THC cannabis to a child for whom the low-THC cannabis was prescribed, or for declining immunization for a child for reasons of conscience, including religious belief. However, Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(e) allows the Department to offer evidence of the actions described in Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(c) as part of an action to terminate the parent-child relationship.
Also, new Tex. Fam. Code § 161.206(a-1) now restricts courts from terminating the parental rights of a parent unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination for that parent.
When DFPS asks a court to grant conservatorship to DFPS or to an individual other than the parent, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing. A parent may also seek to have conservatorship awarded to an individual of his or her choice, and the burden of proof for the parent would also be a preponderance of the evidence that conservatorship to that individual is in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 105.005.
If ICWA applies, the burden of proof and standards for a final order seeking permanent managing conservatorship or termination of parental rights are different than under the Texas Family Code. In summary, if ICWA applies the evidence required to terminate parental rights is beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by qualified expert testimony that continued custody by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child and active efforts to provide remedial and rehabilitative services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family were made but proved unsuccessful. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) and 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f).
• A relative located by DFPS has had a reasonable opportunity to request appointment as a managing conservator of the child or DFPS has not been able to locate the missing parent or a relative of the missing parent. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.208.
◦ exhibits the demonstrable presence of alcohol or a controlled substance in the child’s bodily fluids. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(a).
Special Issue: Courts are prohibited from ordering termination on “O” grounds if a parent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent was unable to comply with specific provisions of the court order, that the parent made a good faith effort to comply with the order, and that failure to comply is not attributable to any fault of the parent.
• That termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b).
• Declined immunization for the child for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(c).
For more information regarding case law related to termination of parental rights, see the DFPS Texas Practice Guide for Child Protective Services Attorneys, Section 8: Termination at https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Attorneys_Guide/documents/Section_8_ Termination/Termination.pdf, and the DFPS 2017 Termination Case Law Update at https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Attorneys_Guide/documents/Section_8_Termination/August_2017_Case_Law_Addendum.pdf.
• Termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003(a).
Immediately after filing a suit under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003, the court shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of the parent against whom the suit is brought. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003(b). An attorney appointed under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003(b) shall represent the parent for the duration of the suit unless the parent, with the permission of the court, retains another attorney. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003(d).
A hearing on the termination may not be held earlier than 180 days after the date on which the suit is filed. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.003(c).
Except as otherwise provided by Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002, the procedural and substantive standards for termination of parental rights apply to the termination of the rights of an alleged father. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(a).
• He has registered with the paternity registry under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 160, but the petitioner’s attempt to personally serve citation at the address provided to the registry and at any other address for the alleged father known by the petitioner has been unsuccessful, despite the due diligence of the petitioner. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b).
The termination of the rights of an alleged father under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(2) or Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(3) does not require personal service of citation or citation by publication on the alleged father, and there is no requirement to identify or locate an alleged father who has not registered with the paternity registry under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 160. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(c-1).
The termination of rights of an alleged father under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(4) does not require service of citation by publication on the alleged father. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(d).
The court shall not render an order terminating parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(2) or Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(3) unless the court receives evidence of a certificate of the results of a search of the paternity registry under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 160 from the vital statistics unit indicating that no man has registered the intent to claim paternity. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(e).
The court shall not render an ordering terminating parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(4) unless the court, after reviewing the petitioner’s sworn affidavit describing the petitioner’s effort to obtain personal service of citation on the alleged father and considering any evidence submitted by the attorney ad litem for the alleged father, has found that the petitioner exercised due diligence in attempting to obtain service on the alleged father. The order shall contain specific findings regarding the exercise of due diligence of the petitioner. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(f).
• The stability of the home or proposed placement.
"The absence of evidence about some of these Holley considerations would not preclude a fact finder from reasonably forming a strong conviction or belief that termination is in the child’s best interest, particularly if the evidence were undisputed that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the child. Other cases, however, will present more complex facts in which paltry evidence relevant to each consideration mentioned in Holley would not suffice to uphold the jury’s finding that termination is required." In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002).
"Evidence about placement plans and adoption are, of course, relevant to best interest. However, the lack of evidence about definitive plans for permanent placement and adoption cannot be the dispositive factor; otherwise, determinations regarding best interest would regularly be subject to reversal on the sole ground that an adoptive family has yet to be located. Instead, the inquiry is whether, on the entire record, a fact finder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that termination of the parent’s rights would be in the child’s best interest—even if the agency is unable to identify with precision the child’s future home environment." In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 32 (Tex. 2002).
Unless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child. It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child. A finding of a history of family violence involving the parents of a child removes the presumption. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131(b).
In determining whether to appoint a party as a sole or joint managing conservator, the court shall consider evidence of the intentional use of abusive physical force, or evidence of sexual abuse, by a party directed against the party’s spouse, a parent of the child, or any person younger than 18 years of age committed within a two-year period preceding the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a).
Effective September 1, 2017, Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e) states that it is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present neglect, abuse or family violence by that parent, or any person who resides in that parent’s household or who is permitted by that parent to have unsupervised access to the child during that parent’s periods of possession of or access to the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e). The statute further provides that courts may consider evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, abuse or family violence by a parent or other person, as applicable. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(f).
The court shall appoint as a possessory conservator a parent who is not appointed as a sole or joint managing conservator unless it finds that the appointment is not in the best interest of the child and that parental possession or access would endanger the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.191.
The court shall consider the commission of family violence or sexual abuse in determining whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c).
• The parent engaged in conduct that constitutes an offense under Tex. Penal Code § 21.02, Tex. Penal Code § 22.011, Tex. Penal Code § 22.021, or Tex. Penal Code § 25.02, and that as a direct result of the conduct, the victim of the conduct became pregnant with the parent’s child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)(2).
Notwithstanding Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d), a court may allow a parent to have access to a child if the court makes one of several findings pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d-1), but see new Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e) and (f) regarding visitation and access to a child by any person who will have unsupervised access to a child who also has a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, abuse or family violence.
• It would not be in the child’s best interest to appoint a relative of the child or another person as the managing conservator. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.404(a).
• Any orders for the conservatorship, possession of or access to, or support of each child affected by the suit continue in effect after the dismissal or nonsuit.
• The needs and desires of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.404(b).
Special Issue: As a best practice, courts should continue the appointment of the child’s attorney ad litem (AAL) and guardian ad litem (GAL) until the child reaches permanency, meaning the child is adopted or leaves care permanently by transfer of conservatorship to a suitable adult prior to the age of 18.
• Intends to waive the right to notice of the suit terminating the parent-child relationship. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.407(a).
A party that seeks to rebut a presumption in Tex. Fam. Code § 263.407(a) may do so at any time before the parent-child relationship is terminated with regard to the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.407(a-1).
If a person claims to be the parent of a child taken into possession under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 262, Subchapter D [Emergency Possession of Certain Abandoned Children], before the court renders a final order terminating the parental rights of the child’s parents, the court shall order genetic testing for parentage determination unless parentage has previously been established. The court shall hold the petition for termination of the parent-child relationship in abeyance for a period not to exceed 60 days pending the results of the genetic testing. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.407(b).
• Obtain a certificate of the search of the paternity registry under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 160, Subchapter E not earlier than the date DFPS estimates to be the 30th day after the child’s date of birth. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.407(c).
Tex. Fam. Code § 263.408 imposes additional duties on DFPS when a nonparent is appointed as managing conservator of a child in the legal custody of DFPS.
• The nonparent’s appointment as the child’s managing conservator will not result in the eligibility of the nonparent and child for post-adoption benefits. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.408(a)(1).
• Obtain legal services for the child and execute contracts or other legal documents for the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.408(a)(2).
The court must require evidence that the nonparent was informed of the rights and duties of a nonparent appointed as managing conservator of a child before the court renders an order appointing the nonparent as managing conservator of a child. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.408(b).

References: § 102
 § 162
 §102
 § 153
 § 161
 § 101
 v. 
 § 161
 § 161
 § 71
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 105
 § 1912
 § 1912
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 161
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 21
 § 22
 § 22
 § 25
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 153
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 263