### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 35 -C V

______________________________

I N THE I NTEREST OF J.K.H. AND B .D.M., CHI L DREN

On Appea l from the County Court at L aw Hopkins County , Texas Trial Court No. CV38579

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rTo protec t the identity of the c hildren who a

re the subject of this su i t , we s h al l ref er 1 here inafter to A

ppellant individually by the pseudony m " Wil liam" and to the Appellee as " Suz anne." See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 109.002(d) ( Ver non 2008). 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I. F ac tu al Bac kgr ound Th e fathe r, Willi a m, a

pp e a ls fr om the te rm inatio n of his pa re nta l ri g hts to J.K .H . a

nd B .D .M

. The opposing party is the mother of the children, Suz anne. The pa rties divorce d in 2000, and the 1 trial court a

ppoint ed Suz anne the sole manag ing c onservator of their two c hildren; Wil liam was

a pp oin te d p os se sso ry

c on se rv a tor , b ut Wi lli a m' s v isi ta tio n r ig hts were to be su pe rv ise d b y

his mother. The e vidence shows that Wil liam had drug and alcohol proble ms at the time of divorce and there after, and suff

ere d clinical depr ession. Wil liam exercised his visitation rights re g ularly for a short period of time, a

nd then occ asionally up to three y ear s after the divorce . He ha s not seen the children since the spring of 2003. He paid child support in the months im mediately afte r the divorc e, but has sent no funds since Marc h 2003, except for one chec k sent in 2007. There is evidence that he and Suz anne ha d disag ree ments and that ar rang ing visits beca

me difficult. As is not uncommon in v isi ta tio n d isp ute s, e a c h p art y bla me d th e oth e r f

or the dif fi c ult ie s; Wi lli a m and his mot he r s a id Suz anne be came hesitant to allow vi sits and obst ructe d them, wher eas Suz anne thinks W illiam was irresponsible a

nd did not attempt to ex erc ise his visit ation regularly . Suz an n e rema rried a nd eventua lly

told W illiam's mother that she must visi t the children at Suz anne' s home.The p e ti ti o n e r a ll e g e d th a t W il li a m h a d

a ls o " f a il e d to s u p p o rt t h e c h il dr e nin

a c c o r d a n ce 2 wi th h is a bil ity duri nga pe ri od of on e y e ar e nd ingwi thi n s ix mon ths of the date of f

il in g of t his petition." B ut the only

g round found by

the t rial court in the orde r of ter mination was that Wil liam voluntarily

left the c hildren without adequate support. 3 Wil liam' s r e lati o n s h ip w it h th e c h il dr e nh a s e s s e n ti a ll y b e e nn o n e xis te n t s in ce 2003—althoug h he sent birthday and Chri stmas presents during2008 to the children—a fter the termination proce eding s wer e filed. He had bee n incar cer ated f or eig hteen to twenty

months before the terminat ion proce eding s for state ja il felony possession of methamphetamine, but was due f or rele ase shor

tly afte r the ter

mination hearing

. Be fore being incar cer ated, the evidence shows he wa s

u n em p l o y edfo r v ary i n g l en gt h s o f t i m e; h e al s o s u ff er edco n t i n u i n g d ep re s s i o nan d al co h o l o r d ru gre la te d d if

fi c ult ie s. II. G r ounds for Te r m ina ti on The trial c ourt found that cle ar a nd convincingevidenc e showe d that Wil liam voluntarily

left the c hildren alone or in the poss ession of another without providing a de qu a te su

pport of the c hil dr e n a

nd re ma ine d a

wa y fo r a pe ri od of a t le a st s ix mon ths

. 2 Th e c ourt a lso fo un d th e te rm inatio n w a s in the be st i nte re sts of

the c hil dr e n a

nd a c c or din g ly terminated William's par ental rig hts. Wil liam contends t hat t he evidence is insufficient to support this finding, a nd thus to support termination, bec ause there was no specific ation of the six-mont h period re lied on and bec ause the re was insuffic ient evidenc e that he "voluntar ily left the children alone or in the possession of another wi th ou t p rov id in g adequ ate supp ort ."4

I n proce eding s to te rminate the par ent-c hild relationship broug ht under Sec tion 161.001 of the T e xa s F a mi ly

Co d e , th e p e ti ti o n e r

mu s t e s ta

b li s h o n e o r

mo r e o f th e a c ts o r

o mi ssions

e nume rate d und e r sub div isi on (1 ) of the statut e and mus t als o pro ve that ter min a tio n is in the be st i n t er es t o f the c hild. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 1 61 .0 01 (V e rn on 20 08 ); Richardson v. Gre en , 6 77 S.W .2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1984). Both e lements must b e es t abli shed; termination may not be base d solely on the best intere st of t he child as determined by the t rier of fac t. Te x . D e p't o f H um an Se rv

s. v. Boy d , 727 S.W .2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987). I I I . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w Termination is a drastic reme dy and is of such weig ht a nd g ravity that due proce ss require s the grounds mus t be established by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e . In re G.M

. , 596 S.W .2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980). The Te x as F amily Code also re quires that ter mination gr ounds must be shown by clea r and convincing evidenc e. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.206(a) (Ve rnon 2008). The evidenc e is clea r and convinc ing w hen the pr oof is such that it pr oduces in the mind of the trier of fac t a firm belief

o r c o n v ic ti o no f

th e tr u th o f th e a ll e g a ti o n s s o u g h t t o b e e s ta blished. In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 –2 6 ( Te x. 20 02 ); see T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 101.007 (Ve rnon 2008). By the same standa

rd, the trial court must a lso f

ind that te rmination is in the best interest of the child. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(2). I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e vie w a ll the e vid e nc e in a lig ht m os t favor able to the f

inding to determ i n e whether a re asonable trier of fac t could have f

ormed a firm5

belief or conviction that its finding wa s true. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 1 0 1

. 007; In re J .F .C. , 96 S.W. 3d 25 6, 26 6 ( Te x. 20 02 ); C.H. , 8 9 S. W.3 d at 25 . L oo kin g a t the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to t he jud g me nt m e ans that w e mus t a ssume that the fa c t- fi nd e r r e so lve d d isp ute d f a c ts i n fa vo r o f i ts f

ind ingif a re a so na ble fa c t- fi nd e r c ou ld d o s o. A c or oll ary to thi s re qu ir e me nt is tha t a trial court should disreg ard a ll evidence that a re asonable fac t-finder could have disbelieved or f ound to have be en incr edible. J .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d at 266. When review ing a

fac tual sufficie ncy

challeng e to a pa

renta l rig hts termination, we c onsider the evidenc e the f

act- finder c ould rea sonably have f ound to be clea

r and convincing

. See id. ; C.H. , 89 S.W .3d at 25–26. In applying this standa rd to a trial court' s findings, w e ask w hether there was sufficie nt evidence prese nted t o produce in the mind of a rational fac t-finder a firm be lief or conviction as to the truth of the alleg ations sought to be e stablished. In re N.R. , 101 S.W .3d 771, 774 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). IV . Vo lunt ar ilyLe ft C hildr e n Under this section, the statute provides that a pare nt's r ights may

be ter m i n at ed if the trial court finds by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the pa rent ha s (C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing a de qu a te su

pp or t of the c hil d a

nd re ma ine d a

wa y fo r a pe ri od of a t le a st s ix mon ths

. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( c). This statute has bee n explained as meaningsix consec utive months. I n r e T.B.D. , 223 S.W. 3d 51 5, 51 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —A mari llo 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; In reD. L.N. , 9 5 8 S. W.2d 934, 937 ( T e x.6

App.—Waco 1997, wr it denied). Although i t is arg ued that no such six-month period is proven by the e vid e nc e , th e re is unc on te ste d e vid e nce th at W il liam w a s c omp le te ly ou t of c on ta c t w ithhis

c hil dr e n f or a pe ri od of se ve ra l y e ars . T his e a sil y me e ts the six- mon th r e qu ir e me nt. Whethe r Wi ll ia

m " v o lu n ta r il y " le f t th e c h il dr e n is th e k e y is s u e to b e c o n s id e r ed. The argument is presente d t h at u nder the plain terms of the statute, the evidenc e must clea rly and convinc i n gl y s h ow that Will iam "voluntar ily " le ft the childre n. I n this case, howe ver, he left the children w ith the mother not purely of hi s own vol ition—he did so pursuant to a c ourt order g iving her posse ssion of the children. T he dec ree is part of the r ecor d. I t r efle cts that Suz anne was g rante d a def ault j u d gm en t , as Will iam did not appear . The c ourt appointed Suzanne as sole ma nag ing

conser vator and Wi lliam as possessory conser vator, a nd obligated Will iam to pay child support of $62.50 per week for each child. As possessory conser vator, Willi am was g rante d visitation wit h the children w hich was r equire d to be supervise d by his mother. L ooking at the plain meaningof the root wor d "voluntar y ," w e find it define d as "1. pr ocee ding f

rom the will of one' s own choice or consent 2. unconstraine d by interfe renc e: selfdet erm in in g, 3. do ne b y

des ign o r i nt ent io n. " M ER R I AM -W EB S TER ' S C OL L EGI AT E D I CT I O N A RY 1402 (11th ed. 2003). William did not vol untarily leave the children with the mother—the court orde red him to do so. Se e G. M. v . Te x . D e p't o f H um an Re s. , 7 17 S.W. 2d

18 5, 18 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 1986, no writ) (de partment named as mana g ing c onservator and pa rent ha d no power to do any thing

vo lun tari ly

wi th c hil d) ; W

etzel v. W etzel , 71 5 S.W.2 d 387 , 390 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 1 98 6, no wr it)I n K.M.B. , the trial court also found that he had not pr ovided support, as he ha d done nothing 3 to k e e p in tou c h wi th the mot he r or c hil d, ha d pr ov ide d no mon e tary su pp or t, h a d ma de no e ff

or t to follow the "service plan" set up for him by Child Protective S ervic es, which require d him to keep t h e a g e n c y i n f

o r m e d o f h i s l o c a t i o n( p r i s o n ) , t o w r i t e t h e c h i l d m o n t h l y, o r

s t o p h i s c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. 7 (leaving c hildren in compliance with court-or dere d custody decr ee is not a g round for termination). Wil liam le ft the children in the possession of another , but the divorce decr ee specific ally states that the childre n are t o b e left in the possession of the mother as the sole mana g ing c onservator. Had Wil liam attempted to take possession of the childre n, except during his supervised visitation period, he would have been in violation of the de cre e and subje ct to sanction for contempt. Grounds for

termination may

occur if the biolog ical father voluntarily leave s the m other befor e the birth of the child and fa ils to support or visi t. See In re K.M.B. , 9 1 S. W. 3 d 1 8 , 2 5 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 2002, no pet.) (other g rounds for termination wer e also prese nt). This situation 3 is differe nt. Wi lliam did not vol untarily leave the mother befor e the birth of the c hildren. L ikewise, his leaving the childre n after t h e divorc e wa s directe d by a divorc e dec ree . There is no other evidenc e that Willi am left the c hildren or a bandoned the family

befor e t h e d i v o rce dec ree was ente re d . He did fa il to vis it the children, but that is not the question. The question is whether he voluntarily

left them in the possession of the mother . As in W etzel , w e c an n o ts ee h o w W i l l i am 's leavingthe childre n with the ir mother, as require d by a divorce decr ee, can be considere d a voluntary act. F or that re ason, the ter mination cannot stand.T h e trial c ourt allowed a trial amendme nt to Suz anne' s pleading to include the g rounds 4 ult imate ly

re lie d o n f

or te rm inatio n. Willi a m c omp la ins thi s a c tio n vio la te d h is d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts and this should be treated similarly to an amendme nt of an indictm ent. Since we have f ound the evidenc e is insufficient unde r the amended plea ding, w e will not addre ss this arg ument. 8 Ha vin g fo un d th e e vid e nc e le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt on thi s ele me nt of

pr oo f, we do no t ne e d to addre ss the other points raised on a ppeal. We reve rse a

nd rende r judg ment denying te rmination. 4

J ack Ca

rter J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 19, 2009 Date D ecide d: September 16, 2009