In the Interest of A.G.-U., a Child Appeal from 196th District Court of Hunt County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00078-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.-U., A CHILD On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 83654 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his child, Ameila.1 After a bench trial, the 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County terminated Father’s parental rights after finding (1) that under Section 161.001(b)(1)(M), he had his parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child,2 (2) that under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O), he failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary for him to obtain Ameila’s return after she was left in conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of her removal for abuse or neglect, and (3) that termination of his parental rights was in Ameila’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(M), (O), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2016). In his sole point of error on appeal, Father challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of his parental rights under Ground (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1). However, Father challenges neither the trial court’s finding under Ground (M) nor the best-interest finding. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under Grounds (M) and (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code. “Only one predicate finding under Section 161.001[b] 1 To protect the confidentiality of the children involved, this Court will refer to all involved parties by titles or fictitious names. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(C)(2). In making a predicate finding under Ground (M), the trial court determined that Father’s parental rights to another child were terminated because his conduct violated (a) Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), meaning that he knowingly placed or knowingly allowed that child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being, (b) Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), meaning that he engaged in conduct or knowingly placed that child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being, or (c) a substantially equivalent provision of the law of another state. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(M). 2 2 (1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In re O.R.F., 417 S.W.3d 24, 37 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, pet. denied) (citing In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); In re K.W., 335 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.)). When the trial court finds multiple predicate grounds, we will affirm if any one ground is supported by sufficient evidence. K.W., 335 S.W.3d at 769. Here, Father does not challenge the trial court’s finding under Ground (M). Since this ground alone can support the trial court’s termination order, we need not “review legal and factual sufficiency arguments as to the other grounds.” In re J.F.G., III, 500 S.W.3d 554, 560 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (citing K.W., 335 S.W.3d at 769). Accordingly, we overrule Father’s sole point of error. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: November 14, 2017 November 15, 2017 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
