In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. A/K/A E.J.C., Children

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 23-0965
══════════

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C. a/k/a E.J.C., Children

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════

CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, joined by Justice Devine and Justice
Sullivan, dissenting.

There was a time at this Court when “involuntary termination
statutes” were “strictly construed in favor of the parent.” Holick v.
Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). I hope that time has not passed.
Once again, there is nothing “strict” about “[t]he Court’s
expansive approach to the pivotal statutory word ‘endangered.’” In re
R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 283–84 (Tex. 2024) (Blacklock, J., dissenting).
Once again, “it rings hollow to continue to say that mere imprisonment
will not, standing alone, constitute engaging in conduct which
endangers the emotional or physical well-being of a child.” In re J.F.-G.,
627 S.W.3d 304, 323 (Tex. 2021) (Blacklock, J., dissenting) (internal
quotations omitted). Once again, “[u]nlike the majority, I have no
quarrel with the court of appeals’ eminently reasonable decision to
reverse the termination of this father’s rights.” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d
at 282. And once again,
Even if the court of appeals did not perfectly apply this
Court’s questionable precedent on child endangerment, we
should nevertheless have denied this petition. It is not
important to the jurisprudence of Texas that we reinstate
the termination of this father’s rights. There are many, too
many, problems with our child welfare system. An
overabundance of successful appeals by parents whose
rights have been terminated is not among those
problems. . . . Leaving the court of appeals’ judgment alone
would not have left th[is] child[ ] uncared-for, and it would
not have prevented the government from continuing to
monitor [his] welfare. We should have let the court of
appeals’ decision stand and focused our attention
elsewhere.
Id. at 284–85.
I respectfully dissent.

James D. Blacklock
Chief Justice

OPINION FILED: June 13, 2025

2