in the Interest of F.J., a Child

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-18-00111-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF F.J., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 115th District Court
Upshur County, Texas
Trial Court No. 682-17
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On petition by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department),
the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her daughter. 1 In her sole point of error on
appeal, Mother argues that she was not required to comply with the trial court’s order requiring
her to complete a family service plan because Father’s actions prompted the Department’s
investigation, not hers. We affirm.
I. Background
Felicity was removed from her parent’s care under Chapter 262 of the Texas Family Code
for abuse or neglect after the Department received reports that Father had sexually abused Felicity.
After the Department brought a petition to terminate Father’s and Mother’s parental rights to
Felicity, the trial court ordered Mother to comply with each requirement of the Department’s
Family Service Plan.
The trial court heard evidence that Mother failed to comply with several provisions of the
Family Service Plan by, among other things, failing to take drug tests even though she had a history
of drug use. Accordingly, the trial court terminated her parental rights after finding that (1) she
failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions
necessary for her to obtain the return of Felicity, who had been in the permanent or temporary
managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of her
1
We use pseudonyms and do not refer to the parties by their real names to protect the identity of the child. See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2018).
2
removal under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect and (2) termination of her parental rights was in
Felicity’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(O), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2018).
II. Mother Was Required to Comply with the Trial Court’s Order
Mother concedes that the Department presented evidence to support the trial court’s
Ground O finding. Therefore, she does not argue that the evidence was legally or factually
insufficient to support the finding. Mother also does not challenge the trial court’s best interests
finding. Rather, Mother argues that Ground O did not apply to her because Father’s actions—not
hers—prompted the Department’s investigation. 2
We have previously rejected Mother’s argument. See In re J.R.H., No. 06-18-00052-CV,
2018 WL 6625886, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 19, 2018, pet. filed) (mem. op.). In doing
so, we expressly held that “ground (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with
the court order be the same person whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal.” Id.
(citing In re D.R.J., 395 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.); In re M.N.,
No. 11-10-00129-CV, 2011 WL 917837, at *3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 17, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op.); In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (op.
on reh’g)); see also In re J.R., No. 02-18-00317-CV, 2019 WL 237740, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Jan. 17, 2019, pet. filed) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we overrule Mother’s sole point of error
on appeal.
2
Mother also claims that, although the State has a compelling state interest in initiating and imposing the Family
Service Plan against Father, it had no such interest with regard to Mother. The “United States Supreme Court has
recognized [that] the State has the ‘right’ and the ‘duty’ to protect minor children.” Sanchez v. Tex. Dep’t of Human
Res., 581 S.W.2d 260, 268 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no pet.) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645,
649 (1972)); see also In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013).
3
III. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: March 13, 2019
Date Decided: March 19, 2019
4