### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 469 -CV

Te xa s D e par tm e nt of F am ilyand P r ot e c ti ve Se r vic e s , A ppe lla nt
v. Jennif er Bar low , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN40105 9 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

D I S S E N T I N GO P I N I O N This is a troubling c ase, but the standa rd of r eview guides and should control our analy sis. Here , it is di spositive.

On Aug ust 3, 2001, just t wo wee ks after the childre n we re pla ced in the f oster ho me , K .M . mo le ste d o ne of the fo ur -y e a r- old s w ithwh om B a rl owkn e w h e shar e d a be dr oo m. Th e ma jor ity re le g a te s to a

fo otn ote e vid e nc e of

c on du c t th a t oc c ur

re d j us t da

y s b e fo re the e ve nts of Au g us t 3, inc lud inga n e pis od e wh e n K .M . c ra wl e d in to o ne of

the fo ur -y e a r- old ’s be ds in the middle o f t h e n i gh t that Ba rlow “inter

prete d as an innoc ent sea rch f or comfor t.” That K.M.’ s “sexual acting out had begun to improve ,” and he had on ly been c aug ht acting out three or four times
ov e r t he pr e vio us y e a r d oe s n ot s uf fi c ie ntl y a me lio ra

te the ri sk that K .M . w ou ld s e xua lly pe rp e tr a te
a s an im me diat e , d ir e c t r e su lt o f t he liv ingsit

uatio n. Th e ma

jor ity fa ult s th e AL J for

ina de qu a te finding s reg arding t he “r ole of the be droom” a nd that there was not substantial evidenc e that “the2

sle e pin g a rr a ng e me nts e xpos e d the c hil dr e n to a ny ri sk no t a lr e a dy

pr e se nt i n K .M .’ s p la c e me nt i n the B arr on home.”

Whe n a c o u rt r e v ie w s a n a g e n c y d e c is io n u n d e r th e s u b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e r

u le , the issue for the r eviewingcourt is not whether the ag ency ’s dec ision was corr ect, but whe ther the r ecor d demonstrates some r eason ab l e b asis for the a g ency ’s ac tion. Texas He alth Faciliti es Comm’n v. Charter Med.–D allas, Inc. , 6 6 5 S
. W
. 2 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 2 (T ex . 1 9 8 4 ) ( ci t i n g Gerst v. Nixon , 411 S.W .2d 35 0, 35 4 ( Te x. 19 66 )) ; Central Power & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n , 36 S .W.3d 547, 561 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). U nder substantial e v i d en ce revie w, we pr esume the Depa rtment’s orde r is supported by substantial evidence , and the a ppellant has the bur den of
overc oming this presumption. See Graff Chev rolet Co., I nc. v. Texas Motor Vehic le Bd. , 60 S.W .3d 154, 159 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied). We may not substitut e our judgme nt for that of the
a g e nc y on ma tte rs c omm itt e d to a g e nc y dis c re tio n. Te x. Go v’ t Cod e Ann. § 2 00 1. 17 4; H.G. Sledge , In c. v. P r o spectiveInv. &Trading Co., Ltd. , 3 6 S
. W
. 3 d 5 9 7 , 6 0 2 ( T e x. A p p . —

A u s t i n 2 0 0 0 , p e t. denied) . The a g ency

is the sole judge of the wei gh t o f t he evide nce a nd the cr edibility

of the witnesses. Central Power & Light , 36 S.W .3d at 561. We must uphold the ag ency ’s ac tion if the evidenc e is such that re asonable minds c ould have r eac hed the c onclusion that the ag ency must have
rea ched in order to justify its a ction. Suburban Util. Cor p. v. Public Util. Comm’n , 652 S.W .2d 358, 364 (Tex. 1983).

Ba rlow took no ac tion when she lea rned K .M. was sharing a room with the two foury e ar- old s, and

sh e too k no ac tio n whe n she le a rn e d K.M . wa s sle e pin g in t he same ro om w iththe m. She too k n o a c tio n a ft e r t he “ kis sin g ” e pis od e or

the dis c ov e ry of K. M. in a fo ur -y e a r- old ’s be d in3

the middle of the nig ht. Surely , that Ba rlow took no ac tion when she wa s assured that the four- y ear olds were put to sleep be

for e K.M. enter ed the be droom is evidence to support the De p ar t m en t’s finding s rather

than evidenc e that B arlow a cted dilig ently as the majority

conclude s. Given (i) the prio r li v in g a r

r a n g e me n ts o f th e c h il dr e n w h e r e th e b e dr o o ms w e r e e qu ip p e d w it h a la r ms so that K.M. could not enter them, (ii) the phy sical limitations of the curre nt living ar rang ements, (iii) the known risks of K.M.’s prior behavior , and (iv) his be havior at the curr ent foster home—all of whic h
wa s k no wn to B a rl ow

—ampl e e vid e nc e e xists to s up po rt the De pa rtme nt’ s deci sio n. F or

the se
rea sons, Iwould find the De p ar t m ent’s decision that Bar low failed to prote ct childre n under he r char g e, ther eby

neg lecting these c hildren, and that her name should be maintai n ed on the Depa rtment’s re g istry

is supported by substantial evidenc e, and I would reve rse the district c ourt’s jud g me nt a

nd a ff ir m the De pa

rtme nt’ s ord e r. B e c a

us e the ma

jor ity do e s n ot, Ire sp e c tf

ull y dis se nt.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Filed: June 28, 2007