pjc-family-2024-lib

PJC 218.3

T ERMINATION OF P ARENT -C HILD R ELATIONSHIP

The instruction in PJC 218.1A should be used in all such cases. The questions in PJC 218.3B should be used if evidence has been admitted of grounds for termination relating both to conduct occurring before and to conduct occurring after the prior order was entered. The instructions and questions in PJC 218.3C should be used if the evi dence admitted of grounds for termination relates only to conduct occurring before the prior order was entered. If there has been an earlier order denying termination but all evidence admitted relates to conduct occurring after that order was entered, see PJC 218.1. Rewording instructions. In PJC 218.3B and 218.3C, the clause PARENT engaged in conduct or knowingly placed CHILD with persons who engaged in con duct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of CHILD , based on Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), is included only as an example. That clause should be replaced by the appropriate ground or grounds for termination in Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1). See the comment entitled “Selecting and wording relevant grounds for termination” below. In PJC 218.3B and 218.3C, the term DATE should be replaced by the date of entry of the prior order denying termination. Admission of evidence. Not all evidence of grounds for termination may be rele vant. There are circumstances under which formerly relevant evidence for termination may, due to the passage of time, no longer be relevant. In the unusual context of a ter mination case that follows a prior denial of termination of the parent’s rights, the trial court must use particular care in determining the admissibility of such evidence. Form of submission. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277, as amended effective May 1, 2020, requires separate jury questions for each parent and each child on (1) each individual statutory ground for termination of the parent-child relationship and (2) whether termi nation of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. It further requires the best-interest question to be predicated on an affirmative finding of at least one termination ground. The supreme court’s order amending rule 277 explicitly supersedes Texas Department of Human Services v. E.B. , 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1990), in which the court had approved the broad-form submission of whether parental rights should be terminated. See Texas Supreme Court, Order Amending Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 277 , Misc. Docket No. 20-9008 (Jan. 8, 2020), 83 Tex. B.J. 104 (2020); Texas Supreme Court, Final Approval of Amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Proce dure 277 , Misc. Docket No. 20-9056 (Apr. 14, 2020), 83 Tex. B.J. 402 (2020). Selecting and wording relevant grounds for termination. Only those grounds for termination that are supported by the pleadings and evidence should be included in the questions in PJC 218.3B and 218.3C. For example, if the allegations for termina tion are based on Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E)—that the parent “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”—a question to the jury may be phrased in the statutory language. In re S.H.A. , 728 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. App.— Dallas 1987, no writ). In such a case, however, if a valid objection is raised that there

206