Opinion filed January 3, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00197-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C44764

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

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of D.C.’s 

mother and father. The father appeals. We modify and affirm.

I. Issues

D.C.’s father presents two issues for review. In his first issue, the father 

contends that the trial court erroneously entered a judgment that was not supported 

by the findings made by the trial court when it rendered judgment in open court. In 

the second issue, the father argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it

named the Department of Family and Protective Services as D.C.’s managing 
2

conservator. The father does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support termination.

II. Judgment Conforming to Findings

With respect to the father’s first issue, the Department concedes: “It is 

appropriate for the Appellate Court to modify the judgment in accordance with the 

complaints of the Appellant.” The reporter’s record reflects that the trial court 

rendered judgment in open court upon its findings that the father had 

constructively abandoned D.C. and that the father had failed to comply with the 

service plan. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(N), (O) (West Supp. 2013). 

The written judgment correctly reflects these two grounds for termination but also 

reflects additional grounds for termination. In accordance with the parties’

requests, the order of termination shall be modified to reflect termination of the 

father’s parental rights on grounds (N) and (O) only. The first issue is sustained. 

III. Conservator

In his next issue, the father argues that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it named the Department, rather than the father’s mother, as the managing 

conservator of D.C. We disagree. 

The findings necessary to appoint a nonparent as sole managing conservator 

need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. In re J.A.J., 243 

S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007). Consequently, we review a trial court’s conservatorship decision under a less stringent standard of review than the standard for 

termination. Id. A conservatorship determination is subject to review for an abuse 

of discretion and may be reversed only if that determination was arbitrary and 

unreasonable. Id.

The record shows that D.C. had previously been placed with his paternal 

grandmother, A.M., but that D.C. had been removed from A.M.’s care after an 

altercation between A.M.’s sons in the presence of D.C. when A.M. failed to 
3

protect D.C. A.M. testified that she had bonded with D.C. and that she could care 

for him on a long-term basis. However, the Department’s family-based safety 

services worker, Connie Crawford, testified that A.M. had previously informed 

Crawford that A.M. could not care for D.C. on a long-term basis, that A.M. was 

scared of D.C.’s father, and that A.M. could not protect D.C. The Department’s 

conservatorship caseworker, Donna Massey, agreed that A.M.’s home assessment 

was “not terrible.” But Massey testified that A.M. had some referrals that were not 

good and that the Department disapproved of A.M. as a placement. Based upon 

the evidence before the trial court, it was within the trial court’s discretion to

appoint the Department rather than A.M. to be D.C.’s managing conservator. We 

cannot hold that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable. The father’s 

second issue is overruled.

IV. This Court’s Ruling

We modify the order of termination to delete paragraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 

6.2.5. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. 

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE

January 3, 2014

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.