In the interest of C.H.
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- July 3, 2002
- Docket
- No. 00-0552
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 4,662 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that emotional and physical interests of a child should not be sacrificed merely to preserve parental rights — In Re PDM (2003)
- recognizing that emotional and physical interests of a child should not be sacrificed merely to preserve parental rights — in the Interest of P.D.M. and K.E.M. (2003)
- holding that same evidence may be probative of both section 161.001(b)(1) and best-interest grounds — in the Interest of N.J.H., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice JEFFERSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS, Justice HECHT, Justice ENOCH, Justice OWEN, Justice BAKER, Justice O’NEILL, and Justice RODRIGUEZ join.
We are asked to decide the appropriate appellate standard to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence in parental termination cases, in which the burden of proof at trial is by clear and convincing evidence. We granted review to resolve the conflict among the courts of appeals about whether the traditional factual sufficiency standard is adequate to review the findings in a termination proceeding, and if not, what the appropriate standard should be. We hold that termination findings must be upheld against a factual sufficiency challenge if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could form a firm belief or [*19] conviction that grounds exist for termination under Texas Family Code sections 161.001 and 161.206(a). When reversing on insufficiency grounds, the reviewing court must detail the evidence relevant to the issue of parental termination and clearly state why the evidence is insufficient to support a termination finding by clear and convincing evidence. Because the court of appeals did not correctly apply this standard, we reverse its judgment and remand to that court for further proceedings.
I
Cite this
In the interest of C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (2002)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.