In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children

Texas Supreme Court

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children

DecidedJune 13, 2025

Docket23-0965

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children (In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children, (Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 23-0965 ══════════

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. a/k/a E.J.C., Children

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════

CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, joined by Justice Devine and Justice Sullivan, dissenting.

There was a time at this Court when “involuntary termination statutes” were “strictly construed in favor of the parent.” Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). I hope that time has not passed. Once again, there is nothing “strict” about “[t]he Court’s expansive approach to the pivotal statutory word ‘endangered.’” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 283–84 (Tex. 2024) (Blacklock, J., dissenting). Once again, “it rings hollow to continue to say that mere imprisonment will not, standing alone, constitute engaging in conduct which endangers the emotional or physical well-being of a child.” In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 323 (Tex. 2021) (Blacklock, J., dissenting) (internal quotations omitted). Once again, “[u]nlike the majority, I have no quarrel with the court of appeals’ eminently reasonable decision to reverse the termination of this father’s rights.” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 282. And once again, Even if the court of appeals did not perfectly apply this Court’s questionable precedent on child endangerment, we should nevertheless have denied this petition. It is not important to the jurisprudence of Texas that we reinstate the termination of this father’s rights. There are many, too many, problems with our child welfare system. An overabundance of successful appeals by parents whose rights have been terminated is not among those problems. . . . Leaving the court of appeals’ judgment alone would not have left th[is] child[ ] uncared-for, and it would not have prevented the government from continuing to monitor [his] welfare. We should have let the court of appeals’ decision stand and focused our attention elsewhere. Id. at 284–85. I respectfully dissent.

James D. Blacklock Chief Justice

OPINION FILED: June 13, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 23-0965 ══════════

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. a/k/a E.J.C., Children

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════

CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, joined by Justice Devine and Justice Sullivan, dissenting.

There was a time at this Court when “involuntary termination statutes” were “strictly construed in favor of the parent.” Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). I hope that time has not passed. Once again, there is nothing “strict” about “[t]he Court’s expansive approach to the pivotal statutory word ‘endangered.’” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 283–84 (Tex. 2024) (Blacklock, J., dissenting). Once again, “it rings hollow to continue to say that mere imprisonment will not, standing alone, constitute engaging in conduct which endangers the emotional or physical well-being of a child.” In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 323 (Tex. 2021) (Blacklock, J., dissenting) (internal quotations omitted). Once again, “[u]nlike the majority, I have no quarrel with the court of appeals’ eminently reasonable decision to reverse the termination of this father’s rights.” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 282. And once again, Even if the court of appeals did not perfectly apply this Court’s questionable precedent on child endangerment, we should nevertheless have denied this petition. It is not important to the jurisprudence of Texas that we reinstate the termination of this father’s rights. There are many, too many, problems with our child welfare system. An overabundance of successful appeals by parents whose rights have been terminated is not among those problems. . . . Leaving the court of appeals’ judgment alone would not have left th[is] child[ ] uncared-for, and it would not have prevented the government from continuing to monitor [his] welfare. We should have let the court of appeals’ decision stand and focused our attention elsewhere. Id. at 284–85. I respectfully dissent.

James D. Blacklock Chief Justice

OPINION FILED: June 13, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-nls-and-ejc-aka-ejc-children-tex-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack