                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-14-00066-CV
                            ____________________


                         IN THE INTEREST OF G.D.P.

_______________________________________________________             ______________

                    On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
                            Liberty County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. CV 1205979
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is a parental-rights termination case in which the State concedes error.

We reverse and render the trial court’s judgment terminating the mother’s parental

rights; otherwise, with respect to the termination of the father’s parental rights and

the decision to award permanent custody to the Texas Department of Family and

Protective Services, the judgment is affirmed.

      In this appeal, the Department does not challenge the trial court’s finding

that G.D.P., the child who is the subject of the judgment at issue, is an “Indian

child” within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. §

                                          1
1903(4). Following a jury trial, the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

parent-child relationship between G.D.P. and her mother, M.L., should be

terminated.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), (M), (2) (West

2014); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2013), § 22.041 (West 2011);

see also In the Interest of J.B., No. 09-11-00305-CV, 2012 WL 2849267 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont July 12, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming termination of the

parent-child relationship between the appellant and four of her other children). In

two issues, Mother (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

trial court’s finding relating to two of the requirements needed for termination

under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), and (2) complains that the trial

court incorrectly instructed the jury about the elements the Department was

required to prove in a termination proceeding involving the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C.

§ 1912(d), (f).

      The Department concedes that it did not obtain all of the required findings

required in termination proceedings under the ICWA. For example, under the

ICWA, the party seeking to effect a foster care placement shall provide remedial

services to mothers of Native Americans designed to reunify the family. Id. §



      1
      G.D.P.’s father, A.P., relinquished his parental rights in the same
proceeding. He did not appeal the judgment.
                                         2
1912(d). In this appeal, the Department concedes the record does not contain

legally sufficient evidence that it provided Mother with these services.

      Because the parties have agreed that Mother’s parental rights to G.D.P. must

be reinstated, we reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, rendering judgment that

the Department of Family and Protective Services’ petition requesting termination

of the parent-child relationship between M.L. and G.D.P. is denied. Because no

party has requested additional relief or a remand for further proceedings, the

remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)

(permitting reversal of the trial court’s judgment by agreement of the parties).

      REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.




                                              ________________________________
                                                       HOLLIS HORTON
                                                            Justice



Submitted on May 30, 2014
Opinion Delivered July 10, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.




                                          3
