In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00066-CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF G.D.P.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CV 1205979
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a parental-rights termination case in which the State concedes error.
We reverse and render the trial court’s judgment terminating the mother’s parental
rights; otherwise, with respect to the termination of the father’s parental rights and
the decision to award permanent custody to the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, the judgment is affirmed.
In this appeal, the Department does not challenge the trial court’s finding
that G.D.P., the child who is the subject of the judgment at issue, is an “Indian
child” within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. §
1
1903(4). Following a jury trial, the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
parent-child relationship between G.D.P. and her mother, M.L., should be
terminated.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), (M), (2) (West
2014); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2013), § 22.041 (West 2011);
see also In the Interest of J.B., No. 09-11-00305-CV, 2012 WL 2849267 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont July 12, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming termination of the
parent-child relationship between the appellant and four of her other children). In
two issues, Mother (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
trial court’s finding relating to two of the requirements needed for termination
under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), and (2) complains that the trial
court incorrectly instructed the jury about the elements the Department was
required to prove in a termination proceeding involving the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C.
§ 1912(d), (f).
The Department concedes that it did not obtain all of the required findings
required in termination proceedings under the ICWA. For example, under the
ICWA, the party seeking to effect a foster care placement shall provide remedial
services to mothers of Native Americans designed to reunify the family. Id. §
1
G.D.P.’s father, A.P., relinquished his parental rights in the same
proceeding. He did not appeal the judgment.
2
1912(d). In this appeal, the Department concedes the record does not contain
legally sufficient evidence that it provided Mother with these services.
Because the parties have agreed that Mother’s parental rights to G.D.P. must
be reinstated, we reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, rendering judgment that
the Department of Family and Protective Services’ petition requesting termination
of the parent-child relationship between M.L. and G.D.P. is denied. Because no
party has requested additional relief or a remand for further proceedings, the
remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)
(permitting reversal of the trial court’s judgment by agreement of the parties).
REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on May 30, 2014
Opinion Delivered July 10, 2014
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3
in the Interest of G.D.P.
Combined Opinion