Terminating Parental Rights When a Child Has Special Needs
Few areas of family law are as bristling with risk and the potential for appeal as a petition to terminate parental rights. When the child involved has special needs, the child may be particularly imperiled if proper parental supervision is missing.
November 18, 2021 at 03:26 PM
9 minute read
Termination of parental rights (TPR) is the severance by court order of the legal relationship between a minor child and one or both of its parents. This can be done involuntarily or voluntarily. Should it happen, the child and parents become legal strangers. Because of the finality of this proceeding, a court will hold a hearing on a TPR petition. At the hearing, interested parties, represented by attorneys if they wish, have the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses to support their positions. The petitioner has the obligation to prove to the court that a TPR would be in the child's best interests. Each state articulates specific evidentiary criteria. In 2019, parental rights were terminated 71,300 times in the United States.
According to the Children's Bureau, CYF/ACF/HHS (2021), the "most common statutory grounds for determining parental unfitness include the following:
- Severe or chronic abuse or neglect.
- Sexual abuse.
- Abuse or neglect of other children in the household.
- Abandonment of the child.
- Long-term mental illness or deficiency of the parent(s).
- Long-term alcohol- or drug-induced incapacity of the parent(s).
- Failure to support or maintain contact with the child.
- Involuntary termination of the rights of the parent to another child."
Parenting a child with special needs can be particularly challenging. Nonetheless, is the standard for terminating their parental rights the same as a parent whose child does not have special needs? Last month, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, decided In the Interest of O.J.P. (NO. 01-21-00163-CV, September 21, 2021). It held that, "Sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b), because the child had special needs due to autism and the mother did not demonstrate an ability to meet the child's needs."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readDoes Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250