Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re A.N.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District

May 24, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N. AND K.N., CHILDREN

         From the 249th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-D201600051

          Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          AL SCOGGINS Justice

         Jeremy N. appeals from a judgment that terminated the parent-child relationship between him and his children, A.N. and K.N.[1] After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Jeremy (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the children, (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangers the children, (3) had been convicted or placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under section 22.04 of the Penal Code Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (b) (1) (D) (E) (L) (West Supp. 2016). The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm.

         Facts

         Jeremy is the father of J.N.; twin boys, M.N. and M.N.; and twins A.N. and K.N. A.N. and K.N were born on November 23, 2015. On January 23, 2016, Jeremy was convicted for injury to a child and sentenced to seventy-five years confinement for injuries M.N. received as a result of being shaken. This Court affirmed Jeremy's conviction on May 17, 2017 in Cause No. 10-16-00222-CR. Jeremy's parental rights were terminated to J.N. and M.N., and M.N., and this Court affirmed the trial court's order of termination for those children on February 22, 2017 in Cause No. 10-16-00234-CV.

         Jeremy was incarcerated for the offense of injury to a child at the time A.N. and K.N. were born, and he remained incarcerated during the pendency of the case. Jeremy was never allowed visitation with A.N. and K.N. The children were removed from the parents while they were still in the hospital and have been in foster care since being released from the hospital.

         Standard of Review

         In eight issues Jeremy argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings on each of the grounds for termination. Only one predicate act under section 161.001 (b) (1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination in addition to the required finding that termination is in the child's best interest. In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex.2003). In conducting a legal sufficiency review in a parental termination case:

[A] court should look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. To give appropriate deference to the factfinder's conclusion and the role of a court conducting a legal sufficiency review, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court must assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so. A corollary to this requirement is that a court should disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to be incredible. This does not mean that a court must disregard all evidence that does not support the finding. Disregarding undisputed facts that do not support the finding could skew the analysis of whether there is clear and convincing evidence.

In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.2005) (per curiam) (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex.2002)) (emphasis in J.P.B.).

         In a factual sufficiency review,

[A] court of appeals must give due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.... [T]he inquiry must be "whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State's allegations." A court of appeals should consider whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its finding. If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient.

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266-67 (Tex.2002) (quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex.2002)) (internal footnotes ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.