The trial court terminated Mother's rights to five children; the family apparently lived in a building described as an abandoned barbecue restaurant, two children were bitten by snakes, one child became involved with drugs and was stabbed and on probation by age 15, there were sexual-abuse allegations against one child by another child's father, and Mother had been imprisoned multiple times, yet the trial record is remarkably sparse on these facts.¹

The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed with each panel justice writing separately: Justice Meza found a predicate ground but insufficient best-interest evidence, Justice Brissette found even the predicate ground unsupported, and Justice McCray would have affirmed; the en banc court then split 3-3 with one justice not sitting, and the Court denied review.¹

Petition for review from the Fourth Court of Appeals, denied, with a statement respecting the denial.²

Whether the government failed to develop an adequate record to justify termination.¹

The Department treated termination as a foregone conclusion; Justice Brissette warned it is the State's duty to investigate and prove the grounds, and an appellate court cannot affirm based on facts outside the trial record.¹

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

The fractured decision and en banc tie mean the case is unlikely to serve as precedent, and the Department should have every incentive to ensure no court sees such a record again; termination requires clear and convincing proof, and the entire video-conferenced trial transcript was 70 pages covering five children and four fathers, with exhibits of little more than service plans and paternity matters.¹ Facts in the removal affidavit, such as Mother's extensive history with the department and the criminal-justice system and the family's living conditions, were not presented at trial.² Whether termination was correct here is left open; a clean, complete record is needed to protect children and parents alike.³

Disposition

Petition for review denied.

Vote Breakdown

Statement of Justice Young, joined by Justices Devine and Sullivan.⁴