NO. 07-08 -016 7-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 B OC TOBER2, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ In t he In terestof J.S ., a c hil d

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 3 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; rd NO. 323 -858 04-J-07 ; HON. JEAN BOYD, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Y ola nda H ow ard appea led from an order ter minat ing her

parental rela ti onshi p w it h her da ughter, J.S . Two issue s p end for re v iew

. Th e f irst concerns whethe r the trial court erred in de nying her request to postpo ne trial. T he second inv olves w het her the ev iden ce
w as leg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s u p p o rt the findi ng thatter minat ion w as in the chi ld’ s b esti nterest

. W e aff ir m the order

. Iss ue 1 - Mo ti

on toExtend In he r firs t i ss ue, H ow ard c omplai ns that the t ri al cour t shoul d hav e pos tponed the f inal he aring so she could have time to comp lete p ortion s of her serv ice plan . W e overrule the i ss ue.2

The sta ndard of rev iew i s o ne of abus ed di sc re ti on. In re D. W ., 249 S. W .3d 6 25, 647 (T ex. Ap p.– Fort W orth 200 8, pet

. den ied). A buse d oes notarise w hen the trial court b a s e s i t s d e c i s i o n o n c o n fl i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , a s l o n g a s t h e r e i s s o me s u b s t a nti v e and p ro b a t i v e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rtt h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d eci si on. Sm it h v . McC ar thy , 195 S. W .3d 301, 305 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 06, p et. deni ed)

. Nor does it occ ur w hen t he mov ant fails to suppo rtthe moti on w it h c ompetentev ide nce. In r e D

. W. , 249 S.W .3d a t 648

. Here, the t rial cou rt co nvened a hea ring on th e mo tion to exten d sho rtly before trial. How ard ten dere d no ev iden ce to supp ort her mo tion, h owev er. I nste ad, her coun sel simply
u t t e r e d w h a t h e b e l i e v e d t o b e j u s t i fi c a t i o ns. See G oode v . Sh oukf eh, 915 S. W .2d 6 66, 671 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o 1996) , aff’ d, 943 S .W .2d 4 41 (Te x . 199 7) (h olding tha t unsworn comments from tri al coun sel are notev ide nce)

. Beca use How ard ten dered no compet ent
ev ide nce to s uppor

t her motio n, the tri al cour t did n ot ab use it s d is creti on i n deny ing i t. In
r e D

. W. , supra . Ev en if t h e state me nts of

coun sel w ere con sidered ev iden ce, th e cou rt could have dete rmine d tha t How ard’s inab ility to comple te he r serv ice plan w as the fault of the mov ant. Issue 2 - Best Inte rest of th e Child W e n e xtc o n s i d e r

H o w a rd ’ s c o mp l a i n ta b o u tt h e q u a n t u m o f e v i d e n c e i l l u s t r a t ing th a t te rminati on w as in the b esti nterestof the c hil d. And, in doi ng so , w e ov er ru le the is sue. The per

ti nent sta ndards of rev iew are di sc uss ed i n In re J.F.C ., 96 S. W .3d 2 56, 2 66- 67 (Tex . 2002) and In r

e C .H ., 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002 ). W e refer the p arties to th ose cases.3

Next, cons ide ra ti on of v ar iou s i ndi ci a w hic h hav e c ome to be k now n as the Hol ley factors i s u seful in re sol v ing the q uest ion at is sue. Those factors i ncl ude 1) the desi re s o f the c hil d, 2) the emoti onal and phy si cal needs of the c hil d now an d i n t h e f u tu re, 3) the emoti onal and phy si cal dang er to the chi ld now and in the future, 4) the p arental abi li ti es of the i ndi v idu als se eki ng cu sto dy , 5) the prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t thos e i ndi v idu als to promote the best int erestof the chi ld, 6) the plans for the chil d bythos e i ndi v idu als se eki ng cus tody , 7) the sta bil ity of t he home, 8) the a cts or omi ss ion s o f the parent i ndi cat ing that the e x is ti ng parent/c hil d rela ti onshi p i s n ot a proper one, and 9) any

ex cus e for the a cts or omis si ons of the parent. In r e P. E.W., 105 S.W .3d 771, 779-8 0 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 2003, no pet .)

. Mo re ov er , i t i s n ot ne ces sar y to show thateac h factor

fav ors t er minat ion , id. at 780, and t he l is t i s n ot ex haust iv e. In r e C .J. F. , 134 S.W .3d 343 , 354 (T ex. App.–Am arillo 2003, pet. deni ed) ; In r

e W.C., 98 S. W .3d 753 , 758 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 03, no pe t.). Inste ad, there m ust simp ly be en ough evidence f rom which the fact f inde r can reason ably form a fir m bel ie f

o r conv ic ti on th at t he c hil d’s bes t i nterestj ust ifies ter minat ion

. In re P.E. W ., 105 S. W .3d a t 780

. Here, the record illustrates th at 1) J.S. ha d previously bee n rem oved f rom Howard’s care du e to Howard’s drug use, 2) thou gh the child w as v olun tarily placed w ith How ard’s frie n d a ft e r

t h i s re mo v a l , H o w a rd l a t e r w e n ta n d re t r i e v e d h e r , 3 ) a tt h e t i me t h e c u r r ent inv est igati o n began in Apr il 2007, H ow ard admi tted to us ing mar ij uana, 4) a mar ij uana blun t w as foun d in J.S.’s crib, 5) J.S. test ed positiv e for cocain e, 6) How ard lef t the child in the c ar e of others w ho, H ow ard av er re d, ex posed the chi ld to coc ain e, 7) H ow ard w as inc ar cerated from June 18, 2007, unti l Aug ust 29, 2007, after ass aul ti ng the w oman w hom4

she bel iev ed had re por ted h er to Chi ld Protec ti v e S e rvice s, 8) H ow ard w as pla ced on probati on for fiv e y ears a s a resul t of the ass aul t, 9) she used marijua na s inc e s he w as ten y ears old, 10) How ard use d coca ine, m arijuan a, an d ecsta sy prior to and af

ter the child’s bir th, 11) sh e reg ula rl y used marijua na and ecs tas y pr ior to the chi ld bei ng pl aced in foster
ca re , 1 2 ) Ho wa r d su f

fe rs f ro m bi p o la r di so rd e r, 13 ) sh e ha s n o dri ver’ s lic e n se al th o u gh she dr iv es a c ar

on o cc asi on, 1 4) w hen she left jail in Augu st of 2007, s he mov ed i n w it h her m oth er, 15) arou nd th e 1 of Octob er 200 7, Howard moved in w ith a m an sh e ha d on ly st known since August 20 07 b ut w hom she sup pose dly inten ded to m a rry, 16) How ard’s
c a s e w o r k e r

d e s c r i b e d t h e re l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n H o w a rd a n d h e r b o yfr i e n d a s o n a n d o ff, 17) H ow ard hel d no formal job dur ing the ti me t h e c a se w as pendi ng al thoug h s he per iod ic all y

recei v ed moneyfor

sty li ng the hai r of family m embers a nd fri ends, 18) a w eek pr ior to the fin al hear ing , H ow ard had su ici d a l thoug hts due to t he i dea of hav ing her p a re n ta l righ ts t e rm in a te d , 1 9 ) Ho ward h a d n o t e n te re d a d ru g tre a tm e n t p ro gra m al th o u gh itw as par

t of her se rv ic e pl an, 2 0) sh e did not c omplet e parenti ng cl ass es (w hic h c onsi ste d of attenda n ce o n o nly tw o Sat urday s) unti l a s hor t t ime before t he final hear ing , 21) alt houg h H ow ard att ended s ix i ndi v idu al couns eli ng se ss ion s, she did n o t b eli ev e the y tal ked about anythi ng benefic ial to her , 22) H ow ard di d nottak e al l of her re qui re d dr ug tests, and 23) the child ha s bon ded to her foste r moth er w ho h as expressed a n inte rest in ado pting her. T his is suf f icient evidence upo n w hich a ratio nal fact f inde r could form a f irm conviction or belief

thattermin ation of

t he pare nt/ch ild rela tionsh ip w as in the best inte rest of t he chi ld. Se e In re A .D., 203 S. W .3d 4 07, 4 13 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2006, no p et.) (s tati ng thatthe mother ’s conti nued use of drug s, her

ar re st for s hopl ifti ng to suppo rther dr ug habi t, her

fail ure to sec ure empl oy ment, and her fail ure to prov ide hous ing su ppor ted5

a findi ng that ter minat ion w as in the chi ld’ s best int erest ). In shor t, the ev ide nce is b oth leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o per mit ter minat ion

. Acc ordin g ly , t he order

of ter minat ion i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice