Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed suit to terminate the parental rights of Pavla Vrsic Chandler and Craig Higley to their four children, N. H., age sixteen, B. H., age fourteen, J. H., age thirteen, and P. H., age twelve. The suit also sought to terminate the parental rights of Pavla and Anthony Chandler to their two children, E. C., age seven, and A. D. C., age six. The fathers, Craig and Anthony, signed affidavits of relinquishment of parental rights to their respective children. Their parental rights were terminated, and they have not appealed. The termination trial was held before the court, without a jury. At the close of trial, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Pavla’s parental rights to her three youngest children, P. H., E. C., and A. D. C., was in the children’s best interests and that grounds existed for such termination pursuant to Texas Family Code �161.001(1)(D) and (E), and �161.003. The court did not terminate Pavla’s parental rights to her three oldest children, N. H., B. H., and J. H. However, these three oldest children are in institutional care with the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. Pavla appeals, contending there was no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights to her three youngest children. HOLDING:Affirmed. The state presented evidence Pavla subjected her children to a home environment where violence and threats of violence were common, and where the children did not receive a secure and nurturing environment, but where they were labeled as emotionally disturbed from an early age. Pavla presented evidence that Anthony, the father of her two youngest children, was the primary source of the violence in the home and that she had subsequently divorced him. She also presented evidence she loved her children and attempted to provide for their special needs to the best of her ability. The court holds the evidence both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Pavla endangered her children’s physical or emotional well-being. Pavla points out there is little evidence she personally committed any direct physical or emotional abuse of the children. The trial court could have found, however, that her conduct jeopardized the children’s well-being. In order for parental conduct to constitute endangerment of the children’s well-being, the conduct need not be directed at the children and the children need not actually suffer injury. Rather, endanger means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopardize. Pavla knew of Anthony’s depression and abusive behavior. She reported that behavior to the Wood County Sheriff’s Office for more than four years. Even in light of the potential harm Anthony posed to the children’s emotional and physical health, she continued to expose them to that environment. In such cases, this court has upheld the termination of a parent’s rights on the grounds of endangerment under subsections (D) and (E). Pavla points out she has sought to improve her situation and provide a better environment for her children. She divorced Anthony and obtained a protective order against him. She complied with everything Child Protective Services wanted her to do in the hopes of reunification with her children. She attended a battered women’s group for six months, was evaluated by a clinical psychologist, attended homemaker lessons, went to court, visited her children each week, and corrected all the conditions in the home which the health department determined might be dangerous. Nonetheless, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, the court finds the evidence of a continued abusive environment in the home was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to form a firm belief or conviction that Pavla knowingly allowed her children to remain in conditions which endangered their physical or emotional well-being and that she knowingly placed her children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered their physical or emotional well-being. OPINION:Ross, J.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.