Opinion · Texas Supreme Court
In re M.C.
39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 373
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1996-03-07
- Topic
- litigation
holding that the evidence of endangerment was legally sufficient when, in part, children ate food off the floor and out of the garbage | holding that the evidence of endangerment was legally sufficient when, in part, children ate food off the floor and out of the garbage | holding that neglect, even in the absence of physical abuse, may endanger a child's physical or emotional well-being | holding that the evidence of endangerment was legally sufficient when, in part, children ate food off the floor and out of the garbage | holding that “endanger” means to expose child to loss or injury or to jeopardize child’s emotional or physical health | holding that “endanger” means to expose child to loss or injury or to jeopardize child’s emotional or physical health | holding that the evidence of endangerment was legally sufficient when, in part, children ate food off the floor and out of the garbage | holding that physical neglect may support an endangerment finding because neglect ―can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse‖ | holding that physical neglect may support an endangerment finding because neglect “can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse” | stating that neglect “can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse” | stating that Subsection (D) requires a showing that the child’s environment—the child’s living conditions along with the conduct of parents or others in the home— endangered the child’s physical or emotional health | noting evidence of cockroach infestation, trash, and children eating food off the ground supported a finding of endangerment | finding evidence sufficient to support a finding under Section 161.001(1)(D) where mother allowed children to live in extraordinarily unsanitary conditions | defining endangerment as exposing a child to loss or injury or to jeopardize a child’s emotional or physical health | determining that children left without competent adult supervision were endangered | finding that even in the absence of proof of direct exposure to danger a trial court’s termination based on an endangerment finding is not insufficient when based on the parent’s failure to obtain medical care and other neglect for their physical needs | finding a parent endangered the children by allowing them to live in extraordinarily unsanitary conditions, which included the presence of garbage, animal feces, and roach infestation | “Neglect can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse.” | “[N]eglect can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse.” | neglect of children’s physical needs can be just as dangerous to well-being of children as direct physical abuse | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may 14 endanger children’s physical or emotional well-being | Endangerment can occur through both acts and omissions of a parent, and parental neglect can be as dangerous to a child’s well-being as direct abuse. | “neglect can be just as dangerous to the well- being of a child as direct physical abuse” | a parent 8 endangered the children by allowing them to live in extraordinarily unsanitary conditions, which included the presence of garbage, animal feces, and roach infestation | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may endanger child’s physical or emotional well-being | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may endanger child’s physical or emotional well-being | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may endanger child’s physical or emotional well-being | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may endanger children’s physical or emotional well-being | neglect, even in absence of physical abuse, may endanger children’s physical or emotional well-being | extraordinarily unsanitary conditions jeopardized children’s health and was some evidence to support termination | “Although there is no evidence that L.C. inflicted direct phy
Citator
- Cited by
- 294 opinions
Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment in this case terminating L.C.’s parental rights to her three children, M.C., D.C., and C.W. The court of appeals held that the evidence was “not sufficient” to support the judgment because “[tjhere was no evidence that L.C. ‘endangered’ her children.” — S.W.2d -, -[, 1996 WL 102361]. Finding that the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) presented legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to that court so that it may address L.C.’s remaining points of error. See Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 456, 462 (Tex.1992).
The Legislature has authorized the termination of parental rights if the parent has:
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child; or
(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.
Tex.Fam.Code § 15.02(1)(D) & (E) (current version at Tex.Fam.Code § 161.001). “Endanger” means “to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize.” Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex.1987). Although “‘endanger’ means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment, it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffers injury.” Id.
On at least two occasions, L.C. left the children alone in potentially dangerous
There was also evidence that L.C. jeopardized her children’s health by allowing them to live in extraordinarily unsanitary conditions. Caseworkers and counselors who visited L.C.’s home testified that it was infested with roaches, that the children ate food off the floor and out of the garbage, and that the floor and furniture were littered with food, dirty clothes, garbage, and feces. The children often wore soiled diapers and clothes, and sometimes had dried food, feces, and mucus on their skin and clothes. Francis Hardy, a foster parent for the children, testified that when the children arrived at her house, they were unclean and had a bad odor. D.C. had dead cockroaches matted in her hair. When Mrs. Hardy cleaned C.W.’s bottles, she found dead roaches inside.
Cynthia Asbury, a Child Protective Services Specialist, testified that L.C. was not only indifferent to the unsanitary conditions of her house and her children, but also unresponsive to the children’s health problems. During one summer, L.C. moved her family from her mother’s home to a rented house, apparently before utility services were connected. Ms. Asbury found the children suffering from severe diarrhea and vomiting, without plumbing or drinking water. Ms. Asbury also testified that the children were often sick with diarrhea and vomiting, but that L.C. rarely took them to the doctor. Ms. Asbury sometimes arranged medical appointments for the children when they were ill, but, usually, L.C. did not bring them to their appointments.
Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services presented more than a scintilla of evidence that L.C. endangered her children’s physical well-being. Although there is no evidence that L.C. inflicted direct physical abuse on her children, there is evidence that she neglected their physical needs, and neglect can be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse.1
Accordingly, we grant the Department’s application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to that court so that it may address L.C.’s remaining points of error. See Tex.R.App.P. 170.
. In its brief, TDPRS notes that in Fiscal Year 1994, 102 children died in Texas from either abuse or neglect. Fifty-five of these deaths were the result of neglect.