On Dec. 15, the Texas Supreme Court delivered an opinion in In the Interest of R.J.G. which many should take notice of—including Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers, child welfare attorneys, parents who find themselves threatened with termination of their parental rights, and judges charged with the difficult task of parsing whether or not children deserve an on-going relationship with their parent. The court focused, in part, on the mandate that the state must prove that “governmental intrusion is warranted.” The bar is set high when a potential means of resolution is termination of parental rights. Those who operate in this arena would be well served to review this unpublished opinion, as well as the predicate grounds for termination set out in Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1).

In this particular case, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“Department”) sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother who was 19 years old when she gave birth to her third child. The Department relied on “(O)” grounds, which would mean that the Department was charged with providing clear and convincing evidence that the parent facing termination of her rights:

(O)  failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child…