For years Texas trial courts have been able to terminate a parent-child relationship because a parent failed to follow a court order that adopted a Family Plan of Service or Family Service Plan (“FSP”) generated by CPS. Over the past couple of years, the Texas Supreme Court has required clear and convincing evidence that the FSP (and the order specifying the actions a parent must take to obtain return of the child) was clear and specific enough and that the FSP was capable of being complied with by the parent and that the parent did not do so before trial. The statutory text currently reads as follows:
§ 161.001. Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship
(b) The court may order termination of parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) that the parent has:
(O) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that specifically establishes the action necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective services for not less that nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;
(2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
This ground for termination has been repealed by the Texas Legislature. This repeal takes effect on September 1, 2025 and it applies to all pending suits and all suits filed after September 1, 2025.
The problem with (O) was that it was inconsistently applied across the state and presented a significant number of problems in its application:
- FSP’swere poorly drafted and unclear;
- FSP’s had conflicting provisions that required parents to work services that were only available at the same times that the FSP required them to have stable employment and stable housing;
- Services were not available for established needs within the county;
- Service providers were not qualified;
- Caseworkers delayed making referrals for services which limited a parent’s ability to complete the FSP prior to trial;
- Services were distant, and no transportation was provided;
- Service providers and CPS did not provide childcare;
- Service providers made recommendations outside the scope of their referral or expertise;
- Service providers were not skilled in providing safety services that did not require parental admissions of guilt (even when criminal cases were pending);
- Service providers were not able to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities;
- FSP demanded completion of services that were unrelated to any reason why the child came into CPS conservatorship in the first place; and
- FSP imposed unreasonable burdens on non-offending and out of state parents.
While this ground for termination of parental rights will be gone, there is still a great deal of risk in a CPS suit involving termination or conservatorship claims. The lawyers at CSS have significant experience in these types of cases and are available for representation. If you or someone you know has a case involving CPS investigations, claims for termination, conservatorship or services or if you are need of an experienced attorney to handle an appeal of an adverse finding in a CPS case, contact one of our experienced attorneys for a consultation.
