The Court Has One Important Reason to Grant TPR

Termination of parental rights requires that there are no other viable alternatives to it. In granting TPR, the court takes into account if there could be any other viable alternatives with respect to the best interest of the child. Read this analysis of T.W. v. C.B.  by Grace Lorimor to understand what that looks like.

So What Does “Viable Alternative” Mean?

The Court of Civil Appeals discussed what constitutes a viable alternative in T.W. v. C.B., (1.23.2026). The court ultimately determined that there were no viable alternatives to terminating the mother’s parental rights because there was no beneficial relationship between the mother and the child that was worth preserving. Additionally, termination of parental rights allowed the child to be adopted by the stepmother, which was found to be the best interest of the child.

The Case

In T.W. v. C.B., the father filed a petition to terminate the mother’s legal rights. The mother had abused the child and the child was living with the father and stepmother. The stepmother had a good relationship with the child and had bonded, such that the child would run to her when she was afraid. In turn, the stepmother would adopt the child after termination of the mother’s parental rights.

The court did not believe that there was a healthy relationship between the mother and the child, nor did they believe that it was going to change. The child was settled, doing well in school, and received counseling in the current living situation with the father and stepmother. And so, TPR.

An Appeal to the Court on Viable Alternative

The mother argued on appeal that the child living with the father and stepmother and not having really any relationship with herself was itself the viable alternative.

This was denied as a viable alternative. Why? In their reasoning, the court stated that there are two things simultaneously needed in order to constitute a viable alternative. First, the status quo (state in which the child would be in if the parent’s rights were not terminated) needs to “protect[] the child from harm.” (p. 18). Second, the status quo needs to “preserve[] a beneficial aspect of the family relationship.” (p. 18). The court clarified that both of these elements must be met at the same time in order for the status quo to be a viable alternative. Additionally, these elements must be accomplished “such that it would be in the child’s best interest to continue the relationship.” (p.18) (emphasis added).

Other Viable Alternatives & Viable Reasons for TPR

Different courts have found that in some cases, removing a child from an abusive parental custody but keeping the legal relationship is beneficial for the child. Sometimes allowing the parent “restricted visitation rights can be a viable alternative to termination of parental rights when it appears that a wayward parent cannot be rehabilitated but still shares a deep and beneficial emotional relationship with his or her children.” (p. 19). Each case is fact determinable and both elements are required to be fulfilled in order for the court to find that keeping the status quo is a viable alternative to termination of parental rights.

The court has also stated that keeping the status quo is not in the child’s best interest if it prevents the child from receiving benefits that they would receive if they were allowed to be adopted. These benefits include financial benefits (like insurance coverage), security, stability, and permanency needs.

The Court Considers Best Interest

Here, the juvenile court held that the mother’s relationship with the child, the status quo, was not beneficial to the child. The mother did not have a relationship with the child anymore and when she did, it was a detriment to her. The court found that after the mother’s visitation rights were suspended, the child became “happy” and “doesn’t worry” along with her grades improving. (pg. 20).

The court ultimately decided that they did not err in finding that there was no viable alternative to terminating the parental rights of the mother because the court could reasonably find that there was no beneficial relationship between the child and her. The court could also find that adoption by the stepmother was in the best interest of the child. Both of these show that the status quo should not be maintained since it would be both harming the child and it is not preserving a beneficial family relationship.

If you know of any family that might be in a similar situation and would like guidance through the legal process, don’t hesitate to reach out at 334-546-2009.