### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-09-00206- CV

Dam iun Stillw ell, Appellan t

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 51ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. A-0 5-0 273- CP S, H ONO RAB LE JAY K . WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an acc eler ated appea l from an order terminating the pare nta l r ig h ts o f a p p e ll a n t Damiun S t i llwell to his child, G.T.S. Following the termination trial, the district court found by clea r and convincing evidenc e that Stil lwell: (1) knowing ly place d or knowing ly allowed the child to rema in in conditions or surrounding s which endang ere d the phy sical or emotional well-be ing of the child; (2) eng ag ed in conduct or knowing ly place d the chil d with persons who eng ag ed in conduct which endang ere d the phy sical or emotional well-be ing of t h e child; (3) failed t o support the child in acc ordanc e with his ability ; (4) constructively abandone d the child; and (5) failed to comply with the provisions of a court o rd er t hat specific ally established the actions nece ssary for Stil lwell to obtain the return of the child. The district court also found b y clea r and convincing evidenc e that ter

mination of the pare nt-child relationship was in the best interest of the c hild.The evidence prese n ted at the t ermination t rial and considere d by the di strict court

included the testimony of St i l l we l l , Depa rtment case worke r Missy McCarty , and counselor Yvonne Gar cia. Stil lwell testified that he had fathe red se ven childre n, including G .T.S., w ith f ive differ ent women. G.T.S. was in the ca re o f t h e Department, two of the children resided with Stil lwell and his w ife, a

nd the four other children lived with the ir mothers. Stil lwell admitted that he paid child support for the four children who lived with their mothers, but he did not pay child support for G.T .S.

McCarty testified that the Depa rtment attempted to have Stil lwell maintai n te le phone contac t wi t h G. T.S. while G.T.S. was in the Depa rtment’s car e, but that Stil lwell had made only th re e or four short telephone calls to G.T.S. betwee n September 2006 and J anuar y 2007. Fur thermore , acc ording to McCarty , Stil lwell did not make any calls to G.T.S. afte r J anuar y 2007 throug h the time of the termination trial in D ece mber 2008. In fac t, McCarty testified that she had not hear d from Stil lwell reg arding G.T.S. since April 2007 and that since that time Stil lwell had not shown an intere st in G.T.S.

Gar cia testified that she had b een providing counseling service s to G.T.S. since Aug ust 2005. Acc ording to Gar cia, G.T.S. had told her that he did not like his fathe r and would be “okay” with his fathe r’s pare ntal rig hts being terminated. Gar cia also testified that G.T.S. had visited Stil lwell on three occa sions in 2007. Gar cia believed that things did not g o well during the last visit, and that G.T.S. “ca

me back definitely a differ ent child” and did not want to resume telephone contac t with Stil lwell. Gar cia testified that based on Stil lwell’s “lac k of contac t or inconsistent contac t” with G.T.S., she had “sig nificant questions about his motivation or his commitment to establish any kind

2of relationship” with the child. Gar cia aff irmed that in her opinion, G.T.S. was rea dy to “move on” and look for a

perma nent family

and a pe rmane nt home. Stil lwell’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a brief co n cl u d ing that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requir ements of Anders v. Calif ornia , 3 86 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating wh y there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See also Tayl o r v. T ex a s Dep’ t of Protective and Regulatory S

e r v s . , 1 6 0 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (apply ing Anders proce dure in appea l from t er m i n at ion of pare ntal rig hts). Stil lwell was provided with a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We have revie wed the r e c o r d and counsel’s brief and ag ree that the appea l is frivolous

an d without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arguably support the appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 741- 44; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646-47. We aff irm the district court’s order of termination and g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 2, 2009

3