In the Interest of A.C.P, A.I.P, A.M.P., M.J-R.P. III, and M.C.S., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION No. 04-24-00653-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.P., A.I.P, A.M.P., M.J-R.P. III, and M.C.S., Children

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023PA01264 Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice Concurring Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Concurring & Dissenting Opinion by: H. Todd McCray, Justice

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2025 I concur with section 3 of Justice Meza’s opinion, in which she affirms the trial court’s judgment that there was sufficient evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D). 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (providing trial court may order termination if court finds by clear and convincing evidence parent has knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger physical or emotional well-being of child). I also concur with section 5 of Justice Meza’s opinion as I conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in appointing the Department of

1 To protect the identity of the minor children, I will refer to appellant as “Mother.” See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.

04-24-00653-CV

Family and Protective Services managing conservator of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.207 (“[I]f the court terminates the parent-child relationship with respect to both parents or to the only living parent, the court shall appoint a suitable, competent adult, Department of Family and Protective Services, or a licensed child-placing agency as managing conservator of the child.”).

However, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations, and to the permissible inferences the trial court could have drawn from the evidence to support its findings, I believe the Department also met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of Mother’s children. 2 TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). Because I would affirm the trial court’s best interest finding, I respectfully dissent from section 4 of Justice Meza’s opinion and would affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights.

H. Todd McCray, Justice

2 See In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014) (explaining that reviewing court must detail evidence relevant to issue of parental termination when reversing finding based upon insufficient evidence, but need not do so when affirming verdict of termination).