SERVICE PLANS OF PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE William B. Connolly Connolly & Shireman, LLP 2211 Norfolk, Suite 737 Houston, Texas 77098 713-520-5757 713-520-6644 (Fax) wbc@conlawfirm.com Juvenile Law Section Houston Bar Association 9th Annual Ad Litem Seminar September 06, 2019 Council on Recovery Houston, Texas

SERVICE PLANS OF PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE SERVICE PLANS OF PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE WILLIAM B. CONNOLLY A significant number of parental terminations are based on Section 161.001 (1)(b)(O) There has been much litigation over the meaning of (O), particularly the last phrase Does the child have to be removed from that parent for abuse or neglect of that child A significant split between the Courts of Appeals was resolved by the Texas Supreme Court with a decision that the only requirement is that the statutory provisions for removal be complied with by DFPS and Court

UNCHALLENGED SERVICE PLANS LEAD TO IMPROPER TERMINATIONS Effective advocacy is required to prevent improper terminations. This occurs when service plans are not properly contested Accountability should be a 2 way street-Service Plans should contain duties upon DFPS as well as parents Eliminate Hearsay recitations from Affidavits Eliminate assumptions and conjecture Eliminate statements that clients have engaged in criminal conduct Eliminate requirements of Clients that are premature…,such as follow all recommendations Eliminate statements that Client must be fully candid and honest. Under whose standards? FSP can be designed without forcing a parent to wave their 5th Amendment

UNCHALLENGED SERVICE PLANS LEAD TO IMPROPER TERMINATIONS Challenge requirements of how parents must demonstrate something, i.e. to whom, about what, how do they know it will be acceptable, etc. Challenge requirements that indigent parents must pay for services Can disabled clients meet work requirements Do FSP requirements conflict with each other, i.e., work full time and go to therapy, court and visits at same time Legal income requirement must include public assistance (some caseworkers and supervisors do not think so Challenge DFPS assumptions and assumptions of others that disability = disqualification

UNCHALLENGED SERVICE PLANS LEAD TO IMPROPER TERMINATIONS Identify conditions or disabilities Identify where client resides Identify available transportation services Identify educational level (History- Special Ed) and Literacy Identify language and learning barriers Identify resources DFPS has (FSP’s need to be negotiated with parents and counsel) Identify Outside Resources

UNCHALLENGED SERVICE PLANS LEAD TO IMPROPER TERMINATIONS Object to plans on your Client and on all other parents where the same hearsay material is contained Eliminate all sources of hearsay and conjecture upon which the Appellate Court can rely to support termination Insist that the Court require “Reasonable Accommodations” Preserve Error – even if Court is not inclined towards your requests parents deserve the right to have that denial available for review

EXCERPT FROM APPELLATE DECISION UPHOLDING JUDGMENT DUE TO UNOBJECTED HEARSAY FROM FAMILY SERVICE PLAN Our review is limited to evidence actually presented or admitted at trial, as well as any matters of which the court could have taken judicial notice. See, e.g., In re J.E.H., 384 S.W.3d 864, 869–70 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). The information received by the Department also indicated that the father was “in the home” and that he had found a “meth pipe” in the mother’s laundry. The paternal grandmother knew the mother was an alcoholic and “abusive towards her son,” whom she considered to be L. D.’s primary care giver. There was no indication that the father attempted to remove L. D. from that environment.2 The father argues that the allegations reported in the family service plan are hearsay which is insufficient to prove the truth of the reports. However, he did not object to the admission of the plans into evidence at trial. Thus, even to the extent the plans contain hearsay, the fact finder could have relied upon them. See TEX. R. EVID. 802.

FAMILY PLAN AFTER HEARING

REDACTED PROPOSED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN