On June 6, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion that apparently would allow a termination of parental rights judgment to be affirmed on a ground not cited as found in the trial court judgment. The opinion in
S.M.R. v. Tex. Dep't of Family Protective Services addressed the department's contention than an unfound ground, if "conclusively established" by the evidence, could be the basis for affirming the judgment. In the case, the trial court's judgment terminated parental rights on the endangerment grounds. The court of appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the evidence was insufficient to terminate on either of the endangerment grounds. (The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals applied the appropriate standard of review on those grounds.)
The department argued that the court of appeals could have affirmed on the (O) failure to comply ground also, even though the judgment did not make a finding on that ground, because the evidence at trial "conclusively established" the proof necessary to make that finding. The Court seemed to give the argument some validity by saying, "The Department next contends that the evidence supporting subpart (O), the omitted ground, is not only legally sufficient but also conclusive, an argument the
Vasquez line of authority did not consider." The Court then goes on to address each of the (O) elements, saying that two of them were "conclusively established" but one was not because there was a fact issue. The inference is that if the department had shown that all three elements of (O) were conclusively established, then the court of appeals could have affirmed the termination judgment on the (O) ground even though the trial court did not make that finding. To view the Court's opinion,
click here.