NO. 07-09 -006 9-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 JAN UA RY

11, 2010

_________

_________

_________

___ In th e Int erest of

A.J.P. , a Child

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DA L L AM COU NT Y; th NO. 108 54; HON. RON ENNS, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Toni M ic hel le Sanc hez(Toni) , the natura l mother of the minor

ch il d A. J.P ., and her husba nd Abraha m Rob erto Sanchez(Abraham) soug ht t er minat ion of the p ar ental r ig hts of the child’s na tural fath er, app ellantAdrian Ryan Sant os. Af ter a he aring, the trial court found that Santos had 1) v olu ntar il y left the chi ld alo ne or in the poss ess ion of another
w ithou t providing ade quate suppo rt of the child and rema ined aw ay for a period of at least si x months , 2) kn ow ing ly

pl aced or

kn ow ing ly

al low ed th e c hil d to re main in condi ti ons or sur ro undi ng s t hat e ndang er ed th e phy si cal or emoti onal w ell being of the chi ld, 3) eng ag ed in condu ct or

kn ow ing ly

pl aced the c hil d w it h persons w ho eng ag e d i n c o n d u ct that end angered the ph y sical or emo tiona l w ell bein g of the child, 4) failed to supp ort the child in acc ordance w it h hi s abil ity duri ng a peri od of one y ear endi ng w it hin si x

months of the2

date of the fil ing of t he peti ti on, a nd 5) kn ow ing ly eng ag ed i n c ri minal co nductthatresul ted in his co nvict io n of an offense and confine ment or i mpri sonmentand ina bil ity to care for the child for not less th a t tw o y ears f rom th e da te th e pe tition was filed . Th e cou rt also found itw as in the best int er est of the c hil d tha t t he r ig hts of Santos be t er minat ed. Santos
c ha l l en g es t he s uffi c i en c y o f t he e v i de nc e to s up po rt th os e fi nd i ng s . W e affi r m. Author it y a nd App licat

ion The st andards of rev iew are di sc uss ed i n In r

e J.F.C ., 9 6 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 6 -6 7 (T e x. 2002 an d In r

e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 200 2) to w hich w e refer the p arties. Furthe r,
w e ne ed o nly det ermin e if evidence of one of the statu tory groun ds is suf f icient to supp ort ter minat ion as w ell as that ter minat ion is in the b esti nterestof the c hil d. In r e K. C. B., 280 S.W .3d 888 , 894 -95 ( T ex. App .–A ma rill o 200 9, pe t. de nied ) ( statin g tha t w e ma y af f irm if the e v ide nce is su ff ic ien t on any one sta tutor

y g ro und re li ed upon by the tr ial co urt w hen there i s a ls o a fin din g thatter minat ion i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d)

. One of the ground s a ll e ge d for termin ation w as tha t app ellanthad knowi ngly eng ag ed i n c ri minal co nductthatresul ted i n hi s c onv ic ti on of an of fense and confine ment
or i mpri sonmentand ina bil ity to care for

the chi ld for notl ess than tw o y ears from the date of the fil ing of the peti ti on, S eptember 18, 2008. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §161.00 1( 1) (Q ) (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 9 ). The e v ide nce show ed th at ap pel lan t had been impr is oned for murde r si nce 2001. At the t ime of the hear ing on J anuar y 6, 2009, appel lan t had se rv ed eig ht y ears o f a si xteen- y ear se ntenc e. He had tw ic e been up for parole and been de nie d. Altho ugh he would com e up for p arole again, he co nced ed th ere w as no g uara nte e it w ould be g ra nted.3

W hile ev i de nc e of th e av ai l ab i l i ty of pa rol e i s r el ev an t i n de te r mi ni ng w he th er a parent w il l be rele ased from pr is on i n tw o y ears, the i ntroduct ion of suc h ev ide nce does not p r e v e n ta t r i e r

o f fa c tfro m fi n d i n g t h a tt h e p a r e n tw i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e i n c a r c er ated. In re H. R. M. , 209 S .W .3d 1 05, 1 09 (Te x . 200 6). In oth er w ords, th e me re possibility of parole doe s not prevent one f rom fo rming a f irm belief or conviction tha t the pare nt w ill rem ain inc ar cerated for at lea st tw o y ears. Id. Giv en tha t 1) a ppe llant participa ted in a m urde r in
re tal iat ion for t he s hooti ng of a c ousi n, 2) appel lan t fled to C ali forn ia from C olo ra do to
esc ape ar re st, 3) appell ant w as ser v ing a si xteen- y ear

pri son ter m w hic h beg an i n 2001, 4) appel lan t has been deni ed parole tw ic e, an d 5 ) a p p e llantci tes us to no ev ide nce of record suggesting that fu ture parole decisions ma y dif fer, the re is ev iden ce of record w hich
w ould ena ble the factf inde r to fo rm a f irm conviction and belief thatapp ellantw ould rema in in pr is on for at l easttw o more y ears a fter t he dat e the ter minat ion peti ti on w as filed

. Mo re ov er , Sa ntos prov ide d no ev ide nce that he w oul d be abl e to or w oul d c ar e for the chi ld dur ing the aforementi oned tw o y ears, and t hat w as his burden. In re Cab aller o, 53 S. W .3d 3 91, 3 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2001, pet. deni ed)

. Nor did any one tes ti fy that t h e y w o u l d o r c o u l d do so on hi s be h a l f. E v i d e n c e th a tan i n c a r c e r a t e d pa r e n tme r e l y l e ft the c h i l d w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r e n t , a b s e n ts o me a g r e e me n ti l l u s t r a t i n g t h a tt h e o t h e r p a r ent
w oul d c ar e for the c hil d on his behal f, does not cons ti tute the abi li ty to prov ide ca re . In re H. R. M. , 20 9 S. W .3 d at 11 0. The r efo r e, th e r ec ord di d pe r mi t th e fac tfi nd er ( i.e. the tr ial
cour t) to form a fir m bel ief or conv ic ti on that the re q uirements of §161.00 1( 1) (Q ) had bee n met.4

Next, w e mustd e te rm in e w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt s t he tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on tha t term inatio n is in the bestin teresto f t he child. I n do ing so, w e ma y conside r the indicia know n as the Holley f a cto rs . Those fact ors 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 chi ld now

and in the future, 3) the emoti onal and physical danger to the ch ild n ow and in the f utu re, 4) the p aren tal ab ilities of the ind iv idua ls seekin g custo dy, 5) the programs available to a ssist those indiv idua ls to prom ote the be st int er estof the c hil d, 6) the plans for t he c hil d by thos e i ndi v idu als or

by the ag ency

se eki ng cus tody , 7) the sta bil ity of the h ome, 8) the act s or omis si ons of t he 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 acts or omis si ons of the parent. In r e P. E.W., 105 S. W .3d 7 71, 7 79- 80 ( Tex . Ap p.–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 not ex haust iv e. In r e C .J. F. , 134 S.W .3d 343 , 354 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 200 3, pe t. de nied ). T here m ust simp ly b e eno ugh evidence to ena ble th e factf inde r to form a fir m bel ief or

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

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

. Evi den ce ap pea rs of

record tha t 1) Sant os ha d be en inca rcerated since the child
w as six mon ths old and t he ch ild w as eight y ears old a t the time o f trial, 2) Santo s saw

his
son four t imes w hil e i mpri soned i n C ali forni a buthad not seen him si nce he w as extradi ted to C olo ra do and had notmai ntai ned any si g nific ant c ontac t w it h the ch il d, 3) he h ad not prov ide d s uppor

t for the c hil d, 4) threats had been made ag ain st the l if e o f the c hil d by others due to Santos hav ing tes ti fied ag ain st his cous ins , 5) the chi ld’ s n a m e ha d be en chang ed to protec t him from thes e threats , 6) Santos threatened the c hil d’s mother thathe5

w oul d k il l her

i f she ev er

allo w ed his son to cal l someone el se “da d,” 7) Abraham Sanc hez is the onl y

f ather the chi ld has know n, 8) Abraham and Toni h av e one chi ld tog ether and she w as pr eg nant w it h anot her , and 9) Abraham tes ti fied he w ants to be abl e to care for Santos ’ son if so methi ng happen s t o hi s w ife. Inca rceration make s Sant os’ f utu re unce rtain w ith resp e c t to m eet ing the child’s need for per manence. In r

e M.D .S., 1 S. W .3d 1 90, 2 00 ( Tex . Ap p.–Am a ri ll o 1999, no pet .). Based on this an d the ev iden c e m e n t ione d ab ove, a rationa l fa ctf inde r could also form a firm conv ic ti on or beli ef that ter minat ion of the p ar ent/c hil d rela ti onshi p at bar w as in the b esti nterestof the c hil d. Hav ing f o u n d t h at t he factfind er co uld l eg it imat ely

co ncl ude t hat o ne g ro und for term inatio n w as esta blished and thatt ermin ation was in A. J.P.’s be st interest , w e overrule all of app ellant ’s issues and af f irm the termin ation order.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e