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

2. 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 (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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. FAMILY PLAN AFTER HEARING

13. REDACTED PROPOSED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN