writing sample - legal brief
Post on 14-Jan-2017
26 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Please note that this document was prepared as a law school assignment and may not be in accordance with all
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This document is intended as a writing sample only.
NO. 008-000-2
________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
________________________________________________________________
MARY GREEN,
Appellant,
V.
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
FROM THE 309TH FAMILY DISTRICT COURT
OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
________________________________________________________________
Exam Number: 4500
Exam Number: 4500 Law Firm
State Bar Number: 777777
1300 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone: (713) 777-7777
Fax: (713) 999-9999
examnumber@examnumberlawfirm.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
2
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of the Case …………………………………………………………..………….. 3
Any Statement Regarding Oral Argument .………………………………………………... 4
Issue Presented …………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Statement of the Facts …………………………………………………………..…………. 4
Summary of the Argument ………………………………………………………………… 6
Standard of Review ………………………………………………………………………... 7
Argument ………………………………………………………………………….……….. 7
I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED APPELLANT’S …… 8
PARENTAL RIGHTS SINCE APPELLANT KNOWINGLY ALLOWED
THE CHILD TO REMAIN IN CONDITIONS WHICH ENDANGERED
THE CHILD’S PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING.
II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED APPELLANT’S ……. 11
PARENTAL RIGHTS SINCE TERMINATING APPELLANT’S
PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
Prayer for Relief ……………………….…………………………………………………… 14
Certificate of Service ………………………………………………………………….......... 15
Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
3
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
In the Interest of K.C.F., ……................................................................................. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6131 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
In the Interest of S.M.R., …………………………………………………………………... 7, 8
434 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. 2014).
In re R.W., ………………………………………………………………………………..... 10
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4556 (Tex. App.—Houston [lst Dist.] June 16, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
In re T.E.G., ………………………………………………………………………………… 8, 9
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4979 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 8, 2014, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
Jordan v. Dossey, …………………………………………………………………… 9, 10, 12, 13
325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Smith v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs., ………………………………………. 7, 8
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9772 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 3, 2009,
no pet.) (mem. op.).
Statutes and Rules
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 161.001(1)(D) ………………………………………………. 8
Tex. R. App. P. 6.3 …………………………………………………………………………. 15
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(g) ………………………………………………………………………. 4
Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(b) ………………………………………………………………………. 15
Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(d) ………………………………………………………………………. 15
Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e) ………………………………………………………………………. 15
Tex. R. App. P. 39.1 ………………………………………………………………………… 4
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
4
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the case: Child custody dispute—termination of Appellant’s parental rights.
Course of proceedings: Department of Protective and Family Services brought suit to
terminate appellant’s parental rights and appoint the child’s current
caretakers as sole managing conservators and eventual guardians
of the child.
Trial court’s disposition: The trial court entered judgment in favor of Department of
Protective and Family Services and agreed to terminate appellant’s
parental rights. The trial court found that appellant knowingly
allowed the child to remain in conditions which endangered the
child’s physical or emotional well-being and that it is in the best
interest of the child for appellant’s parental rights to be terminated.
Appellant is appealing this decision based on its factual sufficiency.
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
5
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 39.1 and Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(g), the State requests to waive
oral arguments since the issues are well established in Texas case law. However, the State will
present oral arguments if this Court determines an oral argument is needed.
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
6
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Under Texas law, does a parent’s inability to support and care for a child enable the state
to terminate the parent’s parental rights when termination of the parental rights it is in the best
interest of the child and the parent’s actions knowingly allow the child to remain in conditions
that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being?
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
7
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Overview
Department of Protective and Family Services (“the State”) successfully brought suit to
terminate Mary Green’s (“Appellant”) parental rights and appoint the child’s (“R.S.”) current
caretakers as sole managing conservators and eventual guardians of R.S. Appellant is now
appealing the trial court’s ruling.
Removal of R.S. from Appellant’s Custody
R.S. was born on January 6, 2012, when Appellant was sixteen years old. Appellant
began traveling with a young, drug-infused jazz band throughout the Southwest United States.
(R.R. 6.) Appellant has been known to use illegal drugs on several different occasions. (R.R. 7.)
In April of 2014, Appellant left R.S. under the sole supervision of the traveling band—for six
continuous weeks—while Appellant attended to Appellant’s sick mother. (R.R. 7.)
Late on the evening of May 15, 2014, an Alabama Protective Services employee
responded to call to investigate a young child who was wandering around a jazz concert. (C.R.
5.) The child did not have shoes on, was in close proximity to individuals drinking beer and
consuming illegal drugs, and was exposed to violent episodes between members of the jazz band.
(C.R. 5.) Further investigation uncovered that the child was fed gummy bears for breakfast and
dinner. (C.R. 5.) After these findings, the employee obtained permission to take the child into
custody. (C.R. 6.) Appellant arrived to pick up R.S. within forty-eight hours. (C.R. 6.)
Appellant returned to Texas with custody of R.S. (R.R. 2.) Appellant did not have a
suitable residence and stayed with R.S. at a motel. (R.R. 2.) A State employee visited the motel
and found the room to be in complete turmoil. (R.R. 3.) Trash was all over the room, the room
contained no nutritious food, there was no place for R.S. to sleep, and marijuana cigarettes were
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
8
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
on the floor. (R.R. 3.) R.S. was temporarily placed into the custody of her current caregivers.
(R.R. 3.) Appellant has served time in jail on two occasions, leaving R.S. with R.S.’s
grandmother, and is currently in jeopardy of receiving another warrant for her arrest. (R.R. 14.)
Termination of Appellant’s Parental Rights
On June 30, 2014, the State and Appellant agreed to a reunification plan—describing
exactly what Appellant needed to accomplish in order to regain custody of R.S. Under the plan,
Appellant agreed: 1) to refrain from using illegal drugs; 2) to obtain and maintain a stable home;
3) to obtain and maintain a stable job; 4) to not associate with known drug users; and 5) to
complete an online parenting class. (C.R. 2.) If all of the tasks were completed by September 1,
2014, Appellant would be reunited with R.S.—failure to complete the tasks would cause the
State to bring termination proceedings against Appellant. (C.R. 2.)
Although Appellant passed all administered drug tests and was able to find an apartment,
concerns still persist since Appellant does not formally pay rent to establish a financial ability to
maintain a stable home and Appellant still wilfully associates with a known drug user. (R.R. 4.)
Not only does Appellant associate with a known drug user, Appellant is in contact several times
a week and allows the known drug user to stay overnight at Appellant’s apartment. (R.R. 13.)
Appellant was able to obtain a job but Appellant was not able to do so until after the September
1st deadline. (R.R. 4.) Furthermore, Appellant was unable to timely complete the parenting
class—completed four months after the deadline. (R.R. 4.)
Appellant failed to comply with the reunification plan and the trial court terminated
Appellant’s parental rights and appointed custody to R.S.’s current caregivers. (C.R. 4.) The
trial court ruled: 1) Appellant knowingly allowed R.S. to remain in conditions which endangered
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
9
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
R.S.’s physical or emotional well-being; and 2) it is in the best interest of R.S. for Appellant’s
parental rights to be terminated. (C.R. 4.)
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
When a parent has abused, neglected, abandoned or endangered a child, a court may
terminate the parent's rights to the child. Terminating a parent’s parental rights requires the
proponent to establish one or more of the recognized grounds for termination and to establish
that termination is in the best interest of the child. Here, Appellant purposefully placed R.S. in
extremely hazardous environments—infested with rampant drug use and violence—lasting for
extensive periods of time. Appellant knowingly allowed R.S. to remain in conditions that
endangered R.S.’s physical and emotional well-being—which satisfies the statute's first
prerequisite for termination.
In order to establish that termination is in the best interest of the child, the court must
look at a variety of factors. Courts often look at the parent’s ability to provide a safe, stable
environment for the child, while keeping the child away from drugs and known drug users.
Appellant wilfully associated with a known drug user, and permitted R.S.’s presence around
illegal drug use. Furthermore, it is not in the child’s best interest that the child be made a guinea
pig upon whom parents should be allowed to practice until they might become more proficient in
child care. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case to determine the
child’s best interest. At the trial court the totality of the circumstances proved that termination of
Appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of R.S. The burden of proof is on the
Appellant to prove that the trial court’s decision was factually insufficient.
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
10
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A judgment terminating parental rights is factually sufficient when the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could form a firm belief or conviction that grounds exist for termination.
In the Interest of S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex. 2014). To reverse a judgment for factual
insufficiency, the court of appeals must detail all the relevant evidence and explain why it is
insufficient to support the judgment. Id. 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 of conviction, then the evidence is
factually insufficient. Smith v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs., 2009 Tex. App.
LEXIS 9772, *13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 3, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). The
burden of proof is on the Appellant to prove factual insufficiency of the evidence.
ARGUMENT
When a parent has abused, neglected, abandoned or endangered a child, a court may
terminate the parent's rights to the child. In the Interest of S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576, 580 (Tex.
2014). The involuntary-termination statute provides two prerequisites for termination: first, the
proponent must establish one or more of the recognized grounds for termination, and, second,
termination must be in the child's best interest. Id. The involuntary-termination statute sets out
20 different courses of parental conduct—including knowingly allowing a child to remain in
conditions that endanger the child’s physical and emotional well-being—which may serve as a
ground that satisfies the statute's first prerequisite for termination. Id. Clear and convincing
proof of any one ground will support a judgment terminating parental rights, if similar proof also
exists that termination is in the child's best interest. Id.
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
11
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED APPELLANT’S PARENTAL
RIGHTS SINCE APPELLANT KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THE CHILD TO
REMAIN IN CONDITIONS WHICH ENDANGERED THE CHILD’S
PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING.
Texas Family Code permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing
evidence shows that the parent knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in
conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 161.001(1)(D). The code requires a showing that the environment
in which the child was placed posed a danger to the child’s physical or emotional health, and it
permits the termination based on a single act or omission by the parent. In the Interest of K.C.F.,
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6131, *31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.). Danger to a child may be inferred from parental misconduct even if the conduct is not
directed at the child and the child suffers no actual injury. Smith v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and
Protective Servs., 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9772, *13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December
3, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). The conduct does not have to occur in the presence of the child.
Id. The conduct may occur before the child’s birth and the conduct may occur both before and
after the child has been removed by the department. Id.
In re T.E.G. involved a mother that used illegal drugs both before and after the children
were removed from the mother’s custody, the mother failed drug tests, and the mother had been
convicted of an assault, in addition to several other prior convictions. In re T.E.G., 2014 Tex.
App. LEXIS 4979, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 8, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). In re
T.E.G. was decided by this Court and determined that the totality of the conduct was enough to
terminate the mother’s parental rights. Id. When evaluating the endangerment of a child, the
court must consider all persons and influences within the child’s environment—not solely the
actions of the parent—that relate to drug use and violence. See In the Interest of K.C.F., 2014
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
12
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
Tex. App. LEXIS 6131, *33 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).
(Inappropriate, abusive, or unlawful conduct by persons with whom the child is compelled to
associate on a regular basis are part of the conditions of the child’s environment. Thus, abusive
or violent conduct by a parent or a person with whom the child is forced to associate with, as
well as illegal drug use and criminal activity, support a conclusion that the child’s surroundings
endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being.)
Similar to the mother in In re T.E.G., who used illegal drugs and had violent tendencies,
Appellant placed R.S. in an environment heavily contaminated by rampant drug use and wilfully
exposed R.S. to violence. Appellant knew that the band enthusiastically used illegal drugs and
had a high propensity of violence—nevertheless Appellant placed R.S. under the band’s direct
supervision for six continuous weeks. See In the Interest of K.C.F., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS
6131, *32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). (Actual injury to
the child is not required—a child is endangered when the environment creates a potential for
danger in which the parent is aware but disregards.)
Furthermore, Appellant has been arrested on several occasions and has admitted to using
illegal drugs, subjecting R.S. to uncertainty and instability. All of the evidence in this case,
including Appellant’s imprisonment, shows a course of conduct that has the effect of
endangering the physical or emotional well-being of the child. See Jordan v. Dossey, 325
S.W.3d 700, 724 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). (Conduct that
subjects a child to life of uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s physical and emotional
well-being.)
In re R.W. does not apply since R.S.’s current caregivers are able to provide R.S. with a
nurturing, stable environment and R.S. was continuously placed in an endangering environment
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
13
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
by Appellant—threatening R.S.’s physical and emotional well-being. In re R.W., 2011 Tex.
App. LEXIS 4556 (Tex. App.—Houston [lst Dist.] June 16, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). In In re
R.W., on appeal the evidence was found to be factually insufficient to support termination. The
mother's behavior was not egregious enough, on its own, to warrant termination of the mother’s
parental rights. While she allowed her children to live in unsanitary conditions and neglected
their hygiene, there was no evidence that they suffered from illness, malnutrition, or abuse.
Children need a safe and stable environment. Without stability a parent is unable to
provide for the child’s emotional and physical needs and a parent’s instability threatens the
physical well-being of the child. Appellant has shown a repeated pattern of wilfully associating
with a known drug user and permitting the known drug user’s involvement with R.S.
Furthermore, Appellant has not demonstrated a desire to change her behavior—even while
facing a strong possibility of permanently losing parental rights of R.S. Texas courts have
consistently found that a parent’s decision to leave a child in the care of a known drug user is
relevant to the predicate acts or omissions for endangerment purposes. Therefore, the court
should infer that Appellant will continue to put R.S. in situations that endanger R.S.’s physical
and emotional well-being and uphold the trial court’s ruling. See In the Interest of K.C.F., 2014
Tex. App. LEXIS 6131, *29 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).
(Stability and permanence are paramount in the upbringing of children, and an endangering
environment can be created by a parent’s involvement illegal drugs, and a factfinder may infer
from past conduct that similar conduct will recur if the children are returned to the parent.)
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
14
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED APPELLANT’S PARENTAL
RIGHTS SINCE TERMINATING APPELLANT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
For best interest purposes in termination of parental rights cases, among others, the
following factors should be considered in evaluating the parent's willingness and ability to
provide the child with a safe environment: the child's age and physical and mental
vulnerabilities; the frequency and nature of out-of-home placements; the magnitude, frequency,
and circumstances of harm to the child; whether there is a history of substance abuse by the
child's family or others that have access to the child's home; whether the child's family
demonstrates adequate parenting skills, including providing the child with minimally adequate
health and nutritional care, guidance and supervision, and a safe environment; and whether an
adequate social support system consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the
child. In the Interest of K.C.F., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6131, *38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The Supreme Court of Texas has set out additional factors that courts may consider when
determining the best interest of the child, including: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the
emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical
danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individual seeking
custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the
child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody; (7) the
stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may
indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the
acts or omissions of the parent. In the Interest of K.C.F., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6131, *38
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). This is not an exhaustive list,
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
15
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
and a court need not have evidence on every element listed in order to make a valid finding as to
the child's best interest, especially when there is undisputed evidence that the parental
relationship endangered the child. Id. While no one factor is controlling, analysis of a single
factor may be adequate in a particular factual situation to support a finding that termination is in
the best interest of the child. Id. The best interest analysis may consider, not only direct
evidence, but also circumstantial evidence, subjective factors, and the totality of the evidence.
Id. at 40.
The state’s fundamental interest in termination of parental rights cases is to determine the
best interest of the child—the child’s needs and interests supersede the needs and interests of the
parent. Efficiently determining the best interest of the child and coming to a final decision is
essential so that adoption to a new caregiver or the return to the parent is not unduly prolonged.
The State, this Court, and R.S. cannot wait around to see if Appellant is able to become an
adequate and providing mother. R.S. is a young child, whose needs are certain to become greater
as she matures. Prolonging the inevitable task of securing R.S. a stable home only intensifies the
harmful circumstances to which R.S. has been exposed. See Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700,
730 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). (Prompt and permanent
placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child’s best interest. The
need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present and future physical
and emotional needs. Prolonged termination proceedings can have psychological effects on a
child of such magnitude that time is of the essence.)
Although there is a strong presumption that a child’s best interests are served by
maintaining the parent-child relationship, parental rights are not absolute. Just as it is imperative
for courts to recognize the constitutional underpinnings of the parent-child relationship, it is also
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
16
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
essential that emotional and physical interests of the child not be sacrificed merely to preserve
that right. Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 729 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet.
denied) (mem. op.). The court cannot terminate Appellant’s parental rights merely because a
more suitable parent is available. See Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 732 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). (Termination decisions cannot be used to
reallocate children to better and more prosperous parents.)
Appellant has frequently left R.S. to fend for herself, whether it involves R.S. traveling
across the country with a delinquent, drug-infused jazz band or staying with Appellant’s sole
support figure while Appellant served time in jail on several occasions. Two independent
inspections by State representatives have revealed less than minimally adequate health and
nutritional care—R.S. enjoyed gummy bears for several meals on one encounter and no
nutritional food was located on the second visit. Furthermore, R.S.’s current caretakers are
extremely stable, enjoy a high-level quality of life, and are willing to permanently care for R.S.
All of these factors should be taken into consideration to determine that the termination of
Appellant’s parental rights is in the best interest of R.S.—R.S. needs a permanent home and
cannot wait for Appellant to consider her interests. See Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 731
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). (It is not in the child’s best
interest that the child be made a guinea pig upon whom parents should be allowed to practice
until they might become more proficient in child care.)
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
17
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
While terminating a parent’s parental rights can be viewed to be the equivalent of the
death penalty in family law cases, failing to terminate a parent’s parental rights—when the
evidence and totality of the circumstances requires termination—is unequivocally more
detrimental and should be considered the death penalty for the child, not the parent.
The record and facts of this case provide ample support to determine that Appellant
cannot adequately care for R.S. Appellant lacks the ability to provide R.S. with a stable
environment and has consistently placed R.S. in situations with a high propensity of causing
irreparable physical and emotional harm. Furthermore, overturning the trial court’s decision
goes against strong case precedent and is certain to harm more children in the future.
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellee, Department of Family and Protective Services,
respectfully requests this Court to affirm the judgment of the lower court and render judgment to
terminate Appellant’s parental rights.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
Exam Number: 4500
Exam Number: 4500 Law Firm
State Bar Number: 777777
1300 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone: (713) 777-7777
Fax: (713) 999-9999
examnumber@examnumberlawfirm.com
Counsel for Appellee
Department of Family and Protective Services
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
18
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I hereby certify
that a true and correct copy of this brief has been served upon all counsel of record via certified
mail, return receipt requested on this the 16th day of April, 2015:
Respectfully submitted,
Exam Number: 4500
Exam Number: 4500 Law Firm
State Bar Number: 777777
1300 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone: (713) 777-7777
Fax: (713) 999-9999
examnumber@examnumberlawfirm.com
/s/ Exam Number 4500
Exam Number: 4500
Counsel for Appellee
Department of Family and Protective Services
Appellant Motion
Exam Number: 4500
19
Please note that this appellate brief was prepared for a law school course and does not contain all requirments in
accordance to Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Facts and parties invovled are fictional.
APPENDIX
(Intentionally left blank.)
top related