C.D., In Interest of, 2-83-097-CV

Decision Date01 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 2-83-097-CV,2-83-097-CV
Citation664 S.W.2d 851
PartiesIn the Interest of C.D., A Child.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Thomas L.G. Ross, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Crim. Dist. Atty., and David H. Montague, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, for appellee.

Before HUGHES, ASHWORTH and SPURLOCK, JJ.

OPINION

HUGHES, Justice.

The Texas Department of Human Resources and Tarrant County Child Welfare instituted this action under TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. sec. 15.02 (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983) against the natural mother of C.D. to terminate her parental rights. The child was four months old at the time of trial and was in the care and custody of the Tarrant County Child Welfare Department. The natural father was not present at trial and filed a waiver of interest in the child. Only the mother has contested the suit for termination. Trial was to the court which found: 1) the mother had knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered its physical and emotional well-being; 2) the mother engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical and emotional well-being of the child; and 3) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. A Decree of Termination was entered from which the mother brings this appeal.

We affirm.

In parent-child termination proceedings, there are several basic principles that apply. There is a strong presumption that the child's best interest is usually served by keeping it with its natural parents. Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.1976). Once evidence is produced, though, to support a finding of the non-existence of that presumed fact, the cause will proceed as if no presumption exists. In Interest of Guillory, 618 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). In order to support an involuntary termination, the essential facts must be proven by "clear and convincing evidence." This standard is defined as "that measure or degree of proof which 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." In Interest of G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex.1980).

The mother raises five points of error on appeal. In the first two points she argues that there is no evidence, or alternatively, the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that she knowingly placed the child in a position or circumstances to suffer harm or injury to her physical or emotional well-being. The third and fourth points aver that there is no evidence, or alternatively, insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the mother knowingly engaged in conduct or placed the child with others whose conduct endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child. In the last point of error, the mother alleges the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that termination of her parental rights would be in the best interest of the child.

The evidence adduced at trial showed the mother had been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type. She had been hospitalized over twenty times and was on medication for the illness at the time of trial. There was also testimony that the mother had been violent in the past because of her mental condition. She had broken a church window, struck a security guard and had attempted to steal a helicopter. There was evidence that the mother had attempted suicide once and made threats to attempt suicide on several other occasions. Dr. Connell, a psychologist who had examined the mother, testified that the prognosis for change in the mother's condition was extremely poor.

While mental incompetence or mental illness alone are not grounds for termination of the parent-child relationship, when a parent's mental state allows him to engage in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child, that conduct has bearing on the advisability of terminating the parent's rights. Carter v. Dallas Cty. Child Welfare Unit, 532 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1976, no writ). The testimony was undisputed that at the time of trial, the mother was unable to care for the child. She was living at the Salvation Army and was unable to work because of her mental condition. Dr. Connell testified that in her opinion the mother would never be capable of providing adequate care for the child.

Carolyn Badgett, a counselor with Parenting Guidance Center and Beverly McCalmont, with the Child Welfare Department, had a chance to observe the mother interact with her child. Ms. Badgett testified that the mother paid little attention to the child and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • S.H.A., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 1987
    ...or emotional well-being. Thus, we hold that subsection (E) does not require physical abuse directed toward the child. In the Interest of C.D., 664 S.W.2d 851, 853 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1984, no writ); In the Interest of S.K.S., 648 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, no writ); Wray......
  • P.A.G. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 2014
    ...does not have to have been directed at the child, nor must actual harm result to the child from the conduct. Id.; In Interest of C.D., 664 S.W.2d 851, 853 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1984, no writ). Additionally, termination under subsection (E) must be based on more than a single act or omission;......
  • In re Interest of S.A.P.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 2015
    ...been directed at the child, nor must actual harm result to the child from the conduct. Dupree, 907 S.W.2d at 84 ; In Interest of C.D., 664 S.W.2d 851, 853 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1984, no writ). Additionally, termination under subsection (E) must be based on more than a single act or omission;......
  • Edwards v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1997
    ...the conduct does not have to have been directed at the child, nor must actual harm result to the child from the conduct. In the Interest of C.D., 664 S.W.2d 851, 853 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1984, no writ). In this case, the child was born with cocaine in his system and he suffered from withdr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT