i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 37 0- CV I n the INTERES T OF D.M .D. and M.A.H., Children Fr om the 45th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PA-00891 Honora ble Charles E. Montema

y or, Associate J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 16, 2009 AFF I RMED The trial court terminated the pare nt-child relationship betwe en A.T.G. and the ch i l dren, D. M. D. a nd

M. A. H. A. T. G. a

pp e a ls the jud g me nt a

nd the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r f ind inghe r a

pp e llate po int s to be fr ivo lou s. We a ff ir m. B ACKG ROUND Child P rotec tive Service s rec eived a ref err al in November

2006, alleg ing phy sical abuse and neg lectful supervision of t he children by their m other, A.T.G . After an investig ator found “ rea son to believe” th e al l ega t i o ns, a ca seworke r complete d an asse ssment and re commended a varie ty of
se rv ic e s to the fa

mil y . A lth ou g h th e fa

mil y c omp le te d s ome of

the re c omm e nd e d s e rv ic e s, in04

- 09

- 00 37 0- CV

- 2- Fe bruar y 2008, two thera

pists working w ith the family repor ted A.T.G. wa s no longe r in compliance and demonstrated a lack of willingne ss to eng ag e in servic es desig ned to addr ess her drug use and ang er issues. The case worke r conclude d A.T.G. was unable to pr ovide a saf e a n d s ec u re
e nv ir on me nt f

or he r ch ild re n. Th e Te xas De pa

rtme nt of F a mil y

a nd Pr ote c tiv e Se rv ic e s f

ile d s uit seeking temporar

y manag ing conservatorship of t he two children, and on May 6, 2008, the trial cour

t signe d an eme rg ency order placing the children with the Depa rtment. After

an adve rsar

y hear ing on May 1 3 , 2008, the cour

t signe d temporar

y order s naming the Depa rtment temporar

y manag ing
conser vator of the children a

nd A.T.G. temporary possessory conser vator, with limit ed acce ss to and possession of the children. The order allowed A.T.G. supervised visitation with th e c h i l d re n t wo times per month, conting ent on “c lean UA ’s or with lower ing le vels of THC.” When the case was c alled for trial on May

26, 2009, A.T.G. failed to appea r. Afte r hea

ring the evidenc e, the tria l court terminate d A.T.G.’s pa renta l rig hts, find i n g by

clea r and c onvincing
e vid e nc e : (1) ter mination of the pare nt-child relationship betwee n [A.T.G.] and the c hildren .

. . is i n th e c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st; (2) [A.T.G.] constructively abandone d the childre n who have been in the pe rmane nt or te mpo ra ry mana g ingc on se rv a tor sh ip o f t he De pa rtme nt .
. . fo r n ot l e ss tha n s ix months and: (1) the De partment .
. . has made rea sonable eff orts to return the c hildren to the mother; (2) the mother has not re g ularly visited or mai n t ained sig nificant contac t with the children; and (3) the mother ha s demonstrated a n inability to provide the childre n with a safe environment; and (3 ) [A .T .G .] f

a ile 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 established the a ctions nece ssary for the mother

to obtain the return of

the childre n who have been in the pe rmane nt or temporar y manag ing co n servatorship of the Depa rtment
. . . fo r not less than nine months as a r esult of the childre n’s re moval from the pa

rent unde r Chapter

262 for the a

buse or ne g lect of the children.04

- 09

- 00 37 0- CV

- 3- See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 16 1. 00 1( 1) (N ), (O ); (2 ) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 09 ). A. T. G. fi le d a n a ff ida vit of indige ncy , a motion for new trial, and a stateme nt of appe llate points. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §263.405(b) ( Ver

non 2009). The trial court held a hearing at which A.T.G. a g ain fa iled to appea r. No testimony

was pre sented a

nd no part of the trial rec ord was prese nted. Howe ver, c ounsel for the De pa rtme nt s ta te d th a t du

ri ngthe tr ia l, the c ourt ha d ta ke n ju dic ia l no tic e of

the a ff ida vit s o n f ile in the cler k’s re cord, w hich set out the plan o f service s and A.T.G.’ s failure to comply . At the
c on c lus ion

of the he a ri ng , th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d A.T .G . is indig e nt, de nie d he r m oti on fo r n e w tri a l, and found he r appe llate points frivolous. See id. § 263.405(d). A.T .G. timely appea led. D I S CUS S I ON Whe n a pp e a l is so ug ht f

ro m an o rd e r t e rm inatin g the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip purs ua nt t o chapte r 263, subcha

pter E, of the Texas Family Code, the trial court must determine whe ther “ the appea l is frivolous as provided by Section 13.003(b), Ci vil Practice a nd Remedies Code.” Id. An appea l is frivolous when it la cks an arguable basis in either lawor fa ct. De La Vega v . Taco Cabana, Inc. , 9 7 4 S
. W .2d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). We revie w the trial c ourt’s deter mination that the appea l is frivolous under an a buse of discr etion standard. Id. A.T.G. c ontends the trial cour

t abused its discretion by

finding her a

ppellate issues a

re f rivolous. A.T.G. fir st arg ues she should be allowe d to appea l the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the evidenc e supporting the s tatutory g rounds for termination. She contends the e vidence is insufficient to s up po rt

te rm inatio n und e r se c tio n 161 .0 01 (1 )( N) of the F a mil y

Cod e be c a

us e “ Ap pe lla

nt d id i n fac t visit her c hildren during the per iods in which she was not inca rce rate d.” A.T.G . was incar cer ated f

rom some t ime in November 2008 until March 9, 2009. At the he aringon the motion04

- 09

- 00 37 0- CV

1 ... A d o c u m e n t i n the c le rk ’s re c o rd e n tit le d “J u d g e ’s N o te s” a n d d a te d M a y 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , the d a te o f t h e trial, cont ai ns a h andwr i t t en not at i on s t at i ng “ ki ds hav e n ot s een mo m f or ove r one y ear . ”
2 ... A .T .G . l ike w ise d id no t ar ticu la te a n y leg a l o r fa c tua l b a sis fo r th is c o n te n tio n in the trial c o u rt, e ithe r in h e r p le a d ing s o r a t t h e he a rin g o n he r m o tio n fo r n e w trial.

- 4- for new t rial, A.T.G.’s attorney stated t he casewor ker te stified at trial that A.T.G. visited the c hildren when she was not in ja il. The Depa rtment’s attorney

disputed counsel’s r endition of the evide nce. Although no e vidence of the c asewo rk er ’s t es t imony was pre sented at the motion for new tria l hear ing, the case worke r’s swor n perma nency plan and prog ress repor ts, dated Octobe r 20, 2008 and F e br ua ry 20 , 200 9, state A. T. G. ha d not part ic ipate d in any pa re nt/ c hil d v isi ts at th e De pa rtme nt. 1 A.T.G. a lso contends the evidence is leg ally and factually insufficient to support termination under se ction 161.001(1)(N) of the Fa mily Code bec ause “ Appellant complete d sever al items on her family service plan.” The only basis for this asser tion is counsel’s statement at t he mot ion for ne w trial hea ring that his client told him she did perf orm some items on the servic e plan. The De partment disputed the statement and a rg ued the trial evidenc e demonstrated A.T.G. did not complete any item on the servic e plan, other than signing it. This is consistent with the case worke r’s swor n perma nency plan and pr og ress re ports in the cler k’s re cords. A.T .G. did not present a ny arguable bas i s in fac t
or law f or he r l e g a l and

fa c tua l in su ff

ic ie nc y po int s; the re fo re , the t ria l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

fi nd ingthe se a

pp e llate po int s f

ri vo lou s. A. T. G. ne xt se e ks to a

pp e a l on the g ro un d “ [t]he tr ia l court vio la te d [he r] d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts by using §161.001( 1)(O) as a g round for termination o f [her] parental rig hts.” A.T.G.’ s brief contains no ar g ument or authority explaining how her rig ht to due proce ss was alleg edly violated or how there is a

n arguable basis in the rec ord fo r h er p o s i t i o n. 2 B y fa ili ngto a de qu a te ly

br ie f t his04

- 09

- 00 37 0- CV

- 5- point, A.T.G. has wa ived it. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. 1( I ); Eastin v. Dial , 2 8 8 S. W. 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 1 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 09 , p e t. d e nie d) ; Gardner v. G ardner , 229 S.W .3d 747, 756 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.). Finally , A.T.G. contends she shoul d be allowed to appea l the denial of her motion for ne w tr ia l on the g ro un d th a t he r fa ilure to a pp e a r a t tr ia l wa s no t in te nti on a l, a nd may have be e n th e re su lt of ineff ective assistance of

counsel. How ever , beca

use A.T.G. did not pre sent any evidenc e at the he a ri ngon

the mot ion

fo r n e w tr ial to su

pp or t he r c on te nti on , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

fi nd inghe r a

pp e a l of thi s is su e to b e fr ivo lou s. The trial c ourt did not abuse its di scre tion in finding A.T.G.’ s appellate points frivolous, and
we a ffirm that c ourt’s judg ment.
Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice