See T ex. Fam . Code A nn. § 1 09. 002 (d) (Ve rnon 2 002 ); T ex. R. App . P. 9.8 (b)(1). 1 NO. 07-08 -025 8-CV

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C DE CE MB ER12, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF A.T.C ., A C HI LD

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 7- 791,368 ; H ON ORABLE BRAD U ND ERW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.

MEMORA NDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEA RING Rem aining convinced th at ou r orig inal dispo sitio n was correct, w e w ill, how ever, g ran t Ap pel lan t’ s M oti on for Reh ear ing and Rec onsi derati on, w it hdraw our opi nio n of Nov ember

14, 2008, and i ss ue th is opi nio n i n l ieu thereof. Appe ll ant, M. C. , ch all eng es 1 the trial court’s order termin ating his pare nta l rig hts to his son, A.T .C. Present ing a sole i s s ue , he ma i nt ai ns t he e v i de nc e i s i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt te r mi na ti on . W e affi r m.2 Back ground A.T .C.’s mot her, W .E.W ., a nd h is fa the r, M.C., began da ting w hen they w ere tee nagers. On Decem ber 7, 1 999 , w hen W .E.W . w as sevente en, she gav e birth to A.T .C. She and M.C. nev er ma rried nor liv ed to gether an d sh e e nde d the relationsh ip app rox ima tely six

mon ths after A.T . C. wa s b orn. M.C.’s parent age w as ad judicat ed in 200 0 an d bot h he and W .E.W . w ere name d joint m ana ging conse rv ato rs. C hild sup port payme nts of

$15 5 pe r mo nth base d on minim um w age w ere ordered to begin on Au gust 1, 20 00. V is it ation byM.C. was lef t in W .E.W ’s discretion. Acco rding to W .E.W .’s tes ti mony , M .C . has not had any co ntact w it h A. T.C. si nce he w as one y ear old and has notprovi ded f inan cial or othe r suppo rt in y ears. In 20 04, W .E.W . ma rried J.P.W . She is a ped iatric nurse an d he r husba nd works in the c onst ru cti on bus ine ss and is a full -t ime col leg e s tudent . Theyhav e a d aug hter w ho is y oun ger than A . T . C. Af ter his half-sister w as bo rn, A.T .C. expressed con cerns to h is s t e p fa t h e r

t h a th e w a s t h e o n l y

p e rs o n i n t h e fa m i l y t h a t h a d a d i f fe re n t s u r n a m e . W . E . W. decid ed to pursue termin ation of M.C.’s pare nta l ri ghts so tha t J.P.W . could ado pt A.T .C. She w rote M.C., w ho was incarcerated at the time, to request tha t he relinquish his parental r ig hts . Acc ordin g to W .E.W ., M. C. refused to c o o p erate d espi te hi s l ack of inv olv ement i n A. T.C. ’s l ife. W .E.W . and J. P.W . i nit iat ed te rmi nati on proceed ing s. They al leg ed th e foll ow ing groun ds:3

(1 ) M. C. v olu ntar il y

left the chi ld al one or i n the pos ses si on of anoth er w it hout prov idi ng adeq uate suppo rtof the c hild a n d remaine d aw ay for a per iod of at lea st six

mon ths; (2 ) M. C. fail ed to su p por t t he c hil d i n ac cordance w it h the parent’ s a bil ity dur ing a pe ri od of one y ear ending w it hin six

m onths of

the date of the fil ing of the pet it ion ; (3 ) M. C. kn ow ing ly

eng ag ed i n c ri minal co nductthathas r e su lt e d i n the parent’ s c onv icti on of an offense and confine ment or im p risonment a nd ina bil ity to care for the c hil d for not l ess than two y ears from the date of f il ing the p eti ti on; a nd (4 ) ter minat ion i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 61. 001 (1)(C) , (F), and (Q), and (2) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). T he trial cou rtg ra nte d the petitio n for termin ation base d solely upon § 161 .00 1(1)(C), impl ied ly findi ng thatM .C . v olu ntar il y l eft the c hil d i n the pos ses si on of anoth er w it hout providing ad eq ua te s up po rt of th e c hi l d an d rem ai ne d aw ay for a pe r i od of at l ea s t six mo nth s. Termina tion of Pare ntal Rights The natural ri g ht ex is ti ng between parents an d t h e ir chi ldren i s o f const it uti onal dimens ion . Holick

v. Sm it h , 685 S.W .2d 1 8, 20 ( Tex . 198 5) . Con seq uentl y , t er minat ion proceed ing s mus t be str ictl y sc ru ti niz ed. In In terest of G.M. , 5 9 6 S . W . 2 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 6 (T e x. 1980) . A te rmi nati on decre e i s c omplet e, fina l, i rrev ocabl e, an d di v est s for al l ti me that nat ural rig ht as well as all legal r ights, priv ileges, dutie s, and powers w ith respe ct to ea ch other ex ceptfor t he c hil d’s r ig ht t o i nher it . Holick , 685 S.W .2d at 20 . Th us, du e proce ss re q uires appl ic ati on of the cl ear and conv inc ing st andard of pro o f i n c ases i nv olv ing4

inv olu ntar

y ter minat ion of parental r ig hts . In re J.F.C. , 96 S. W . 3d 2 56, 263 (Tex. 2002 ). Cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce is thatmeasu re or deg re e of proof w hic h w il l produce i n the mind of the tr ier of facta fir m bel ief or co nv icti on as to the t ru th of the al leg ati ons soug ht to be es tabl is hed. See§ 10 1.007. See al so In Inter

est of G.M ., 596 S. W .2d a t 847 ; In re Z.J. , 153 S.W .3d 535 , 539 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 200 4, no pet .). Paren tal rig hts, h owev er, are no t abso lute, and it is essen tial tha t the emo tiona l and ph y sical interests o f t he ch ild not b e s acr ific ed merely to preser

v e tho se ri g hts . In re C.H. , 8 9 S . W . 3 d 1 7 , 2 6 (T e x. 2002) . Sect ion 161. 001 of the Fami ly C ode per mits a cour

t to order ter minat ion of parental ri g hts i f the pet it ion er

es tabl is hes one or

more acts o r o m iss ion s e numerated under subse ction ( 1) o f t he s ta tu te a nd a l s o prov es t ha t te r mi na ti on o f t he p aren t- c hi ld re lat ion shi p i s in th e b e sti nterestof the c hil d. See§ 16 1.001( 2) ; Ho lle y v. A da ms , 544 S.W .2d 3 67, 3 70 ( Tex . 197 6) . Thoug h the sa me ev ide nce m a y b e probati v e of both is sues , bot h el ements mustbe est abl is hed and proof o f one el ement do es not reli ev e the peti ti oner

of the b urden of prov ing the other . See id .; In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d a t 28.

Lacko f Fi nd in gs of

F act Notwi thsta ndin g M.C.’s request for f indings of fact an d con clusio n s o f l a w, he did not mak e a f urther

req uestas req uired byRule 297 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re . Con seq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt di d not file findi ng s n or co ncl usi ons. I n s uch a c ase, the tr ial cour t’ s j udgm e n t impl ies al l findi ng s o f factnec ess ar y to suppo rti t. Pha ro v. Cham bers5

Cou nty, 922 S.W .2d 945 , 948 (Tex. 1996 ). W hen a reporte r’s reco rd i s f iled, ho w ever, thes e i mpli ed findi ng s a re not conc lus iv e a n d m a y b e c hal len g ed for leg al and factu al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce. BM C Soft ware Bel g. , N. V. v

. M ar chand , 83 S.W .3d 7 89, 7 95 (T e x. 2002) . The ju dg ment mus t be aff ir med i f it can be uphe ld on any l eg al theor

y that finds suppo rti n the ev ide nce. W or for d v . St am per , 801 S.W .2d 108 , 109 (Tex. 1990 ). St and ard o f Rev iew M. C. mai ntai ns, by

hi s s ole iss ue, that the ev ide nce is insuffici ent to suppor t the tr ial cour t’ s t er minat ion order . In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t an orde r termina ting pare nta l rig hts, a court shou ld look at a ll the evidence in th e lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the fin din g to deter mine w hether a reason abl e tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e formed a fir m bel ief or

co nv icti on th at i ts findi ng w as tr ue. In r e J.P.B . , 1 8 0 S . W . 3 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 3 (T e x. 2 0 0 5 ) (ci ti n g In re J.F.C. , 96 S. W .3d 256 , 266 (Te x . 200 2)). To giv e ap prop riate de feren ce t o t h e fa c tf in d e r’ s c o n c lu s io n s a n d t h e ro le o f a c o u rtc o n d u c t in g a le ga l s u f f ic ie n cy re vie w, loo ki ng at the e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the j udg ment means thata rev iew ing c o u rtm u s ta s s u me t h a tthe factfinder re s o l v e d d i s p u t e d fa c t s i n fa v o r o f i t s fi n d i n g i f a reaso nab le factf inde r could do so. A corollary to this requireme nt is tha ta court sho uld d is re ga rd a ll e vid e n c e t h a ta r e a s o n a b le fa c tf in d e r c o u ld h a ve d is b e li e ve d o r fo u n d t o h a ve been i ncredi ble . This does not m ean that a cour t mus t di sreg ard al l ev ide nce that does not supp ort the f inding. D is re ga rding undispu ted facts th at do not sup port th e f inding could sk ew the anal y si s o f w hether there i s c lea r and c onv inc ing ev ide nce. Id.It is note w orthy thatthe re cord est abl is hes that M. C. ch ose not t o be presentat the 2 ter minat ion hear ing othe r than throug h c ounse l’ s represent ati on. 6 The st andard for re v iew ing the factual suff ic ien cy of termi nati on f ind ing s i s w hether the e v ide nce is su ch that a factfinde r coul d reason abl y form a f ir m bel ief or

co nv icti on a b o u t t h e t r u t h o f t h e . . . all eg ati ons. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d 1 05, 1 08 ( Tex . 200 6) (ci ti n g In re C.H. , 89 S. W .3d at 27). If , in light of t he ent ire reco rd, the d ispute d evidence that a reason abl e factfinde r coul d nothav e c re dit ed i n fav or of the findi ng i s s o s ig nific ant that a factfinde r cou ld n o t reason abl y hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv icti on, t hen t he ev ide nce is factual ly

i nsuffici ent. In r

e H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d at 10 8 (ci ti n g In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d a t 266 ). Onl y one stat utor

y g ro und i s req uired to ter minat e parental r ig hts under § 16 1.001. See In r e A. V. , 113 S.W .3d 355 , 362 (Tex. 2003 ); In re S.F. , 32 S.W .3d 31 8 , 320 (Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2000, no p et.) . Therefore, w e w il l aff ir m the ter minat ion order i f the ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t on any st atuto ry

g ro und reli ed on by

the tr ial co urt i n ter minat ing the pare nt-child relat ionsh ip w hen there is also a f inding tha t term inatio n is in the child’s be st int erest . See In re A.V. , 113 S.W .3d a t 362 . Discus sion 2 I. § 16 1.0 01(1 )(C) - Grounds for Inv oluntary Termination The cour t maytermi nate the p arent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i f the c our t finds by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the p arent h as left t he chi ld alo ne or in the p oss ess ion of another7

w ithou t providing ade quate su ppo rt of the child and rema ined aw ay for a period of at least s i x mo nths . See § 161. 001( 1) (C ). Thi s g ro und i s c ommonly ch aract er iz ed as the abandonmentof a c hil d by a pa re nt. See In re T.B.D. , 223 S .W .3d 5 15, 5 18 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2006 , no pe t.). Th e six -mon th pe riod is a period of at least six cons ecut iv e months . See i d. As previously

men tione d, M.C. was n am ed join t ma naging conservator of A.T .C. in 2 0 0 0 wh e n h is p a re n t a ge wa s e s t a b li s h e d . Ac c o rd in g t o W . E . W . ’s u n d is p u t e d t e s t im o n y, M. C. w as not i nterest ed i n hav ing a rel ati onshi p w it h A.T.C. if he coul d not hav e one w it h her also. At the time of the hea ring, A.T .C. w as eight y ears old. M.C. had n ot see n A.T .C. s i n c e h e w a s o n e y e a r

o l d a n d b e fo re t h a t , h e o n l y s a w h i m a “ h a n d f u l ” o f t i m e s . W . E . W. recalled M.C. calling ab outt hree t ime s sin ce A.T .C. w as one . W hen A.T .C. w as four years old , W .E.W . s aw

M .C . ata f uneral w here he inq uired about A.T.C. , but di d notas k t o s ee him . W hen A.T .C. w as six y ears old, M.C. called W .E.W ., but only to ta lk abou t his fath er’s poor heal th; he di d notas k about A.T.C . W .E.W . and M.C . had a chanc e enc ounter at an air po rt w he n A. T. C . w as v er y y ou ng . W he n M .C . as k ed ab ou t hi m, W .E .W . po i nted in A.T.C .’ s d irect ion “ a w ay s o ff” but M .C . di d notex it hi s c ar to see A.T.C . Basi cal ly , W .E.W .’ s t est imony es tabl is hed t hat M .C . h a d no cont actw it h A. T.C. after he w as one y ear old . After W .E.W . i nit iat ed te rmi nati on proceed ing s, M. C. di d att empt t o corresp o n d f ro m prison , butshe ref used the corresp ond ence to avoid conf using A.T .C. In he r w ords, “ [A.T.C .] doesn ’tkn ow w ho [M .C .] is .”8

W .E.W . t est ified thatnei ther M .C . nor hi s famil y

hav e prov ide d any

financ ial or

othe r supp ort for A.T .C. over the y ears. She recalled th at dia pers w e re p ro vid e d a few time s. Accordin g to Att orne y

Gene ral reports, no child supp ort has b e e n pa id by M.C. since August 18 , 200 3. T he ev iden ce is clear and convincing tha t M.C. v olun tarily lef t A.T .C. in W .E.W .’ s p oss ess ion w it hout prov idi ng adeq uate suppo rt a nd th at M .C . remaine d aw ay for a per iod of si x

co nsec uti v e months . Thus, the e v ide nce is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t to s uppor

t t er minat ion under

§161. 001( 1) (C ). II. §161.00 1( 2) – B estIn te rest Notwi th s t a ndin g the suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort term inatio n un der § 161.001 (1 )( C) , w e mustal so find c lea r and c onv inc ing ev ide nce that ter minat ion of the parent- chi ld rela ti onshi p w as in A.T.C .’ s b esti nterest . See§ 16 1.001( 2) . In de ci din g the besti nterestof a c hil d, we c onsi der se v eral factors i ncl udi ng : ( 1) the desi re s of the c hil d; (2 ) the e moti onal and physi cal needs of the c hil d now and in the future; ( 3) the emoti onal and physi cal dang er t o t h e c h ild now and in the future; ( 4) the parental abi li ti es of the ind iv idu als se eki ng cu sto dy ; (5 ) the prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t thes e ind iv idu als ; ( 6) the pla ns fo r th e c hil d by

thes e i ndi v idu als ; ( 7) the sta bil ity of the h ome; ( 8) the act s o r omis si ons of the parent w hic h may i ndi cat e tha t t he ex is ti ng parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s n ot a p ro p e r o n e ; a n d ( 9 ) a n y e x c u s e fo r t h e a c t s o r o mi s s i o n s o f t h e p a re nt. Hol ley, 544 S.W .2d a t 371 -7 2. These fact ors a re not ex haust iv e; so m e l isted factors may be ina ppl ic abl e to so m e c a se s, w hil e oth er factors n ot on the li st mayal so be c onsi dered9

w hen app ro pr iat e. In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d a t 27. F urther more, undi sput ed ev ide nce of one factor may be s uff ic ien t i n a p arti cul ar ca se to s uppor

t a findi ng thatter minat ion i s i n the best int erest of t he c hil d. Id . On the other hand, the presenc e of

scant ev ide nce re lev ant to ea ch Hol

ley factor w il l not s uppor

t s uch a findi ng . Id . Ev iden ce tha t proves one or m ore sta tutor y g ro unds for te rmi nati on may al so cons ti tute ev ide nce il lus trati ng thatter minat ion is i n the ch il d's bes t i nterest . See id . at28. I n a ny ca se, there mustbe e v ide nce from w hich a factf inde r could reaso nab ly h ave forme d a f irm conviction or b elief t hatt he ch ild's besti nterestw ar ra nted ter minat ion . In r e D .S.A . , 113 S.W .3d 567 , 574 (Tex.App .--Ama rill o 2003, no pet .) . W .E.W . i s a pedi atr icnurse and J .P.W . has hel d the same j ob for tw elv e y ears, and a c c o rd i n g t o W . E . W . , t h e y h a v e a g o o d m a r r i a g e . I n a d d i t i o n t o A . T. C . ’ s y o u n g e r h a l fsi ste r, J. P.W . al so has an older daught er . The extended family is v er y inv olv ed in y outh acti v i ti es , fami l y

fun c ti on s , an d fami l y

b i rth da y s . J .P .W . c oa c he s A .T .C .’ s s oc c er t ea m. W .E.W . t est ified thatA.T.C . ex press ed an int eresti n bei ng rais ed by hi s s tepfather . Nei ther M .C . nor

hi s famil y

hav e a rela ti onshi p w it h A .T.C . W .E.W . t est ified that w hen A. T.C. w as three w eeks ol d, they v is it ed M .C .’ s p arents dur ing C hr is tmas and t hey did not ex press a desi re to hav e a re lat ion shi p w it h the ir g ra ndson . Acc ordin g to W .E.W ., the p ater nal g ra ndparents foug ht a n d s h e bel iev ed th ey w ere al cohol ic s. There i s n o e vid e n c e t h a tt h e y e ve r p ro vid e d a n ysu p p o rtfo r A . T . C. In li gh to f t h e e n t ir e re c o rd , we10

find clea r and conv inc ing ev ide nce that ter minat ion of M .C .’ s p arental r ig hts to A.T.C . w as in the c hil d’s bes t i nterest . Con seq uentl y , w e ov er ru le M. C. ’s so le is sue. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s t er minat ion order i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice