### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 62 -C V

______________________________

I N THE I NTEREST OF R.S. AND S.L .S., CHI L DREN

On Appea l from the County Court at L aw Bow ie County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 05 C16 82 -C CL

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , M o s e l e y

an d C o r n e l i u s , * JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Cornelius

________________________ *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt2 O P IN I O N Michae l Tremel Sande rs appeals from the or der of the B owie County

Court at L aw t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a

r e n t a l r i g h t s t o R
. S
. an d

S
. L
. S
. , w h o w e r e s e v e n an d f i v e ye ar s o f

a g e , r e s p e c t i v e l y, when the T exas Depar

tment of Fa

mily and Protec tive Service s (TDF PS) filed the petit i on for termination. Severa l court hearing s wer e held at which Sanders was not prese nt, but at which he wa s repr esente d by

leg al counse l. After r ece iving e vidence , the trial cour t found that Sanders ha d: 1. Voluntarily

left R.S. and S.L .S. alone or in the pos s es s i on of anothe r without providing a dequate support of t he children, and remained a way for a period of at lea st six months. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( C) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). 2. Faile d to c omp ly wi th t he pr ov isi on s o f a

c ourt or de r t hat sp e c if ic a lly est ab l i shed the a ctions nece ssary to obtain the return of

the childre n who had be en in the temporar

y manag ing conser

vatorship of the Texas D epar tment of Family and Protective Servic es. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001 (1)( O) (V ernon Supp. 2007). 3. Knowing ly eng ag ed in c riminal conduct that resulted in his conviction of an off ense a nd confine ment or imprisonment and inability to c are for the c hildren for not less than two y ear s from the date of the f iling of the pe tition for termination. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §161.001(1)( Q) (V ernon Supp. 2007). B a se d o n th e a

bo ve fi nd ing s, the tr ia l cou rt or de re d tha t the pa

re nta l rig hts of Sand e rs to R .S. and S.L .S. be terminated. Sa nd e r s r a i s e s t w o i s s u e s o na p p e a l : ( 1 ) w h e t h e r

t h e e v i d e n c e i s f

a c tu a l l y an d l e g a lly sufficie nt to support the trial court' s judgme nt terminating Sanders' pare ntal rig hts; and (2) whe ther3

the trial cour

t erre d in denying Sande rs' application for a benc h war

rant to appe ar at the termination he ari ng s. We o ve rr

ule bo th o f t

he se iss ue s a

nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt. I n order for a trial court t o terminate pa renta l rig hts, the court must find, on clea r and convincingevidenc e, that th e p ar en t has committed one or more of the a cts listed in Section 161.001(1) of

the Texas Family

Code and that termination is in the best interest of the children. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1) (Ve rnon S u p p . 2007). Clear and convinc ing e vidence is that deg ree and quantity

of evide nce that produce s in the mind of the trier of fac t a firm belief or
c o n v ic ti o no f

th e tr u th o f th e a ll e g a ti o n s to b e e stablished. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 101.007 (V e rn on 20 02 ); In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002). I n revie wing the e v i dence for f actua l sufficienc y , we g ive due c onsideration to all the
ev idence that the fa ct-finde r could re asonably find to be cle ar a

nd convincing
. I

n re J .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). I n revie wing the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence , we look at a ll the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the finding , and deter mine whether

a re asonable trier of

fac t could have formed a fi rm belief that the finding was true , assuming that the fac t-finder resolved disputed fac ts in favor of the finding if a re asonable fac t-finder could do so. Id. Sand e rs is a

n inma te of the Te xas D e pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio ns . H e ha s a c kn ow le dg e d h e is the fathe r of R.S. and S.L .S. Alecia Easter is the children' s mother. The c ourt also terminate d her pare ntal rig hts to R.S . and S.L .S., but she has not appea led. Sander s and Easte r have n ever bee n
marr ie d. I t is un c le ar wh e the r San de rs e ve r a c tua lly liv e d in a ho me wi th t

he c hil dr e n. Ea ste r d id4

so on ly sp or a dic a lly

and inc on sis te ntl y . Sand e rs a dv ise d TD F PS that he ha d n o r e so ur c e s a nd c ou ld not provide for

the childre n. He a sked that they be lef t in Easter' s car e. F or much of the time, the
c hil dr e n s tay e d w ith fri ends, r e la tiv e s, or fo ste r p are nts , w ithEa ste r p ro vid ingve ry lit tle su pp or t. Ev ide nc e sh ow e d th a t th e chi ld ren wen t un fe d ma ny tim e s, the y

be g g e d f oo d f ro m ne ig hb or s, E as t er 's h o u s e a tt i m es h adn o fo o d o r e l ec t ri ci t y , an d

t h e c h i l dre nh adal m o s tn o p ar en t al n u rt u ri n g. Easter was a regular methamphetamine user , and she and Sanders were coca ine us ers. Sanders wa s convicted in 2001 of

felony coca ine possession an d s entenced to fiftee n y ear s' imprisonment. He was placed on community supervision, but his community supervision was r evoked in 2002, a nd he was inca rce rate d. Whil e i n ca rc erated, Sander s was convic ted of thre e other offe nses, ea ch for hara ssment by

a per s o n in a cor

rec tion/detention facility . His prison terms are to be serve d
consec utively , and he is sche duled to be inca rce rate d for a

total of twenty -t wo y ea rs and to be dis c ha rg e d o nly in 20 22
. Sand e rs ha s ne ve r pr ov ide d su pp or t f or R.S. and S.L .S. Whe n h e be c a me
awa re that termination proce eding s had been instit uted, he requested that home studies be conduc ted with reg ard to seve ral f

amily members a

nd acqua intances he thought mig ht be willing to take the children a nd car e for

them, but all of them either w ere unable to do so or r efuse d to do so. The un d is p ute d evidenc e shows that Sander s knowing ly eng ag ed in cr iminal conduct that has resulted in his conviction of sever al offenses, and his imprisonment and inability to car e for

R.S. and S.L .S. for more tha

n two y ear s from the date of the filing of the pe tition for termination. That is the
c on du c t sp e c if

ie d in Se c tio n 1 61 .0 01 (1 )( Q) of the Te xas F a mil y Cod e . Onl y on e statut or

y pr e dic a te5

fi nd ingun de r S e c tio n 1 61 .0 01 is ne c e ssa ry to su pp or t a jud g me nt of te rm inatio n w he n th e re is a lso a finding that termination is in the best interest of the childre n. There is such a finding here , and we find both it and the finding relating to imprisonment and inability to support to be supported by clea r and convinc ing e vidence . I n view of our hol ding, it is unnece ssary for us to discuss whethe r the trial court' s two other pre dicate f indings a re suppor ted by leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence
. I n his second issue, Sander s contends the tria l court er red in de ny ing his a

pplication for a be nc h w arr ant t o atte nd

the te rm inatio n h e ari ng s. A litigant in a c ivil procee ding doe s not have a n absolute rig ht to appear

persona lly

in a cour t proce eding
. In re Z.I

.T. , 1 24 S.W. 3d

16 3 (Tex . 200 3) . Ins te a d, an inma te ' s r ig ht t o p e rs on a lly appea r must be weig hed ag ainst the integ rity of our corr ectional sy stem. Id. at 165. Sever al fa ctors should be consider ed whe n d ec i d ing w hether to gr ant an inmate' s reque st for a be nch
war rant: (1) the cost and i n co n v en i en ce of bring ing the inmate to the cour t proce eding ; (2) the
secur ity risk to the court and the public; (3) whether the inmate' s claims are substantial; (4) whethe r the cour t hear ing c an re asonably

be dela y ed until the inmate' s re l ea s e; (5) whe ther the inmate can produce admissible, noncumulative testimony that cannot be eff

ectively p re sented by

deposition, t el ep h o n e, o r o t h er

m ea n s ; (6 ) w h et h er

t h e h ea ri n g i s b ef

o re a j u d ge o r a j u ry ; an d

(7 ) t h e i n m at e's probability

of succ ess on the mer its. Id. at 165–66. The inmate has t h e s o l e b u rd en to justify the
nece ssity of hi s prese nce by producing the i nformation showing t he above-listed factors. Id. at 166. I n this case, Sande rs fa iled to make any showing relating to the se fa ctors that would justify the trial6

court in issuing a bench w arr ant for him to appe ar at any of the he aring s. Moreove r, Sander s was repr esente d at all hear ings by leg al counse l, and he made no objection to the trial cour t's de nial of his re qu e st fo r a be nc h wa rr ant. Th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

re fu sin g the re qu e st fo r a be nc h w arr ant. For all the re asons stated, we overr ule Sander s' issues and af firm the judg ment of the trial
c ourt .
Willi a m J. Co rn e liu s* J ustice *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt Date Submitted: Marc h 11, 2008 Date D ecide d: April 8, 2008