in the Interest of A. K. T. v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2018 )

Concurring opinion issued December 6, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00647-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.T., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 314th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-03858J
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur in the judgment. I write separately to caution against the dangers of
kitchen-sink approaches to opinion writing, particularly in the area of parental-
termination appeals. There is ample evidence to support the judgment in this case.
That being the case, the court can and should be selective in highlighting the
evidence that supports the outcome, avoiding reliance on more dubious factors.
With particular reference to evaluating the best interests of the child, one of
the nonexclusive factors to be considered is “the parental abilities of the individuals
seeking custody.”1 I would not emphasize the mother’s lack of income or resources
when there is no reason to do so. A parent’s inability or unwillingness to care for a
child can and should be considered in a best-interest analysis without reducing the
issue to a matter of the parent’s indigency. Why not stop there and rely on the other
evidence that supports termination under the other best-interest factors? We don’t
terminate parent-child relationships because the parents are poor.2 And we must take
care not to write judicial opinions that suggest that we do.
With these observations, I concur in the court’s judgment.
Michael Massengale
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.
Justice Massengale, concurring in the judgment.
1
See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976).
2
See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(c)(2) (“A court may not make a finding under
Subsection (b) and order termination of the parent-child relationship based on
evidence that the parent . . . is economically disadvantaged . . . .”).
2