Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision A reasonable factfinder, observing the demeanor of the witnesses offering conflicting evidence, could certainly have resolved the disputed evidence in favor of the trial court’s best interest finding. FACTS:On the first day of the proceeding to terminate the parental rights of Angel Wilson, a Child Protective Services investigator testified that Wilson had recently moved from Oklahoma, where she was the subject of a child services investigation, but did not have a stable address in Texas. She sometimes stayed with her mother in a rundown house, but her relationship with her mother was volatile. She sometimes stayed with a friend in an equally rundown house across the street, and sometimes she stayed on the street. Wilson allegedly told the investigator that she was hiding the child from CPS, and a roommate told Hunt that Wilson sometimes shook and threw the child. The investigator observed the child on one occasion, and she was dirty, poorly nourished and covered with insect bites. A CPS caseworker testified that Wilson had not completed any of the steps in a plan CPS set out for her to be reunited with her daughter: 1. to complete a psychological evaluation; 2. to attend parenting classes and anger-management classes; 3. to return to high school or complete her GED; 4. to visit the child; and 5. to pass drug screens. She said she thought Wilson placed the baby in surroundings that endangered the child. Another case worker testified that Wilson was angry and belligerent, had failed drug tests and had constructively abandoned the child with CPS. Wilson herself testified and said it was her mother who shook and threw the baby. The trial court terminated Wilson’s rights; now Wilson appeals the ruling, claiming it was unsupported by the evidence. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court highlights Wilson’s failure to comply with the court order establishing the actions necessary to obtain the return of her daughter. Wilson claims she couldn’t meet the requirements because of financial constraints, but the court points out that Wilson couldn’t explain why the Social Security money and money from friends and relatives wasn’t enough. Nor was there evidence that she made efforts to find assistance from the court for complying. “. . . Wilson’s economic argument does not create a factual dispute as to her compliance: it is, instead, in the nature of an excuse for her failure to comply.” The court finds the decision to terminate was in the best interest of child, due to the evidence of abuse, neglect, lack of emotional bonding, unstable residence, drug use and more. “Overall, there was evidence Wilson did not place the interest of her child first when making decisions.” Though Wilson disputed many of the specifics of the negative against her, the court concludes that”a reasonable factfinder, observing the demeanor of the witnesses offering this conflicting evidence, could certainly have resolved the disputed evidence in favor of the trial court’s best interest finding.” OPINION:FitzGerald, J.; Thomas, C.J., James and FitzGerald, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.