## C O U R T O F AP P E AL S

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R I S T I

- 

## E D I N B U R G

NUM BER 1 3-09 -004 35-CV

IN THE I NTEREST OF J .K. R. A /K/ A J .K. C., CHI LD

On a ppeal fr om the 135t h Di str ic t Cour t

of V ic tori a County

, Texas.

NUM BER 1 3-09 -004 36-CV

IN THE I NTEREST OF M .R. C., R. L.B. J R., A ND A .B.

, CHILDREN

On a ppeal fr om the 267t h Di str ic t Cour t

of V ic tori a County

, Texas.



## MEMORA NDU M OPI NION

Before J usti ces Gar za

, Benavides, a nd Vel a

M emor andum O pini on by J usti ce Benavides

App ellant

, Am y Clark, app eals the district court’s orde r f or the involuntaryt e rm in ation of her pare nta l rig hts to her f our children und er T exas Fam ily Code section 1

161 .00 1. See T E X

. F A M

. C O D E A N N

. § 161 .00 1 (Verno n 200 8). By f our issues, Am y argues

tha t the e vid e nce prese nte d during the term inatio n hea ring w as legally and f actu ally

insuf f icient to supp ort a f inding tha t: (1) term inatio n of the pare nt-child relation ship w as in

the children ’s best intere st; (2) she knowingl y place d or knowingl y allowed the children to

rema in in cond itions or surroun dings w hich end angered the ir p hysical o r em otion al w ellbein g; (3) she engaged in cond uct or k n o win gl y place d the children w ith perso ns w ho

enga ge d in cond uct tha t end angered the ir physical or em otion al w ell-being; and (4) she

f ailed to com ply w ith the provisi ons of a court orde r tha t specif ically esta blished the action s

nece ssary f or her to retake her ch il d re n f rom the conse rv ato rship of the Depa rtme nt of

Fam ily an d P rotect iv e S erv ices (the “Depa rtme nt”). W e a f f irm.

I. B A C K G R O U N D

Am y is the mo the r of f our children in the Depa rtme nt’s custo dy: M.R.C., born July

2, 200 2; R.L.B

. Jr., born August 24, 200 4; A.B.

, born March 3, 200 6; and J.K.R., born May

9, 200 7. Robe rt Bala dez is the f ath er of all f our children and liv ed w ith Am y and the

children i nte rmitte ntly. Robe rt had a history of fam ily vi olen ce a nd arrests p reda ting the 2

issues in this case. In Octob er of 200 6, the t h re e e ld e s t children w ere remo v ed by the

Depa rtme nt f ollowi ng a det ermin ation tha t Am y and the childr e n h a d bee n physically

abu sed by Robe rt. In March of 200 7, Am y began liv ing at Perpe tua l Help Hom e, a hom e

I n t h i s o p i n i o n

, w e c o n s o l i d a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3

- 0 9

- 0 0 4 3 6

- C V

, c o n c e r n i n g A m y ’ s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s 1

t o t h e t h r e e o l d e r c h i l d r e n

— M

. R

. C

. , R

. L

. B

. J r

. , a n d A

. B

. — a n d c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3

- 0 9

- 0 0 4 3 5

- C V

, c o n c e r n i n g

A m y ’ s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o h e r y o u n g e s t c h i l d

, J

. K

. R

. , a l s o k n o w n a s J

. K

. C

. ( h e r e i n a f t e r

, “ J

. K

. R

. ” )

. T h e t w o

c a s e s w e r e t r i e d t o g e t h e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, a n d A m y n o w a r g u e s t h e s a m e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l f o r e a c h

c a u s e

, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f h e r f o u r t h i s s u e

, w h i c h a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e t h r e e o l d e r c h i l d r e n i n c a u s e N o

. 1 3

- 0 9

-

0 0 4 3 6

.

R o b e r t ’ s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e t h r e e o l d e r c h i l d r e n w e r e i n v o l u n t a r i l y t e r m i n a t e d o n S e p t e m b e r 1 1

,

2

2 0 0 7

, a n d h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o J

. K

. R

. w e r e i n v o l u n t a r i l y t e r m i n a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h A m y ’ s r i g h t s a t t h e

f i n a l h e a r i n g

. R o b e r t

, h o w e v e r

, i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a p p e a l

.

2tha t provides a place to liv e f or w om en and assists the m in lear n in g t o t ake care of the ir

children

. J.K.R. w as born w hile Am y w as liv ing at Perpe tua l Help, and one mo nth later, in

June of 20 07, the three older children w ere returne d to her care. Am y liv ed at P erpe tua l

Help u ntil Se pte mb er of 20 07.

Ste pha nie Cavaz os, a licensed clinical s o c ia l w orker, w orked directly wi th Am y at

Perpe tua l Help and testif ied tha t it w as obvious to her tha t Am y loved her children

, but w as

not read y to leave Perpe tua l Help in Sep tem ber of 200 7; howev er “there w as no chan ging

[Am y ’s] m ind” a bou t lea v ing. Am y f oun d a n a partm ent w ith th e h elp o f the Depa rtme nt.

Just af ter Am y lef

t Perpe tua l Help, a hea ring to involuntarily term in a t e Robe rt’s

pare nta l rig hts to the three olde r children w as held

. At Robe rt’s hea ring, Am y testif ied tha t

Robe rt assau lted her on several occasio ns, had don e so in f ront of the children

, and w as

also physically v iolent towards the children . Fu rther, Am y testif ied tha t Robe rt had used

drugs in the hom e, som etim es in f ront of the children

, and the hou se regularly w as w ithou t

electricity and runn ing w ate r. Add itiona lly

, Am y testif ied tha t term inatio n of Robe rt’s rig hts

w as in the best intere st of the children

, and the court the reafter term inate d Robe rt’s

pare nta l rig hts a s to the thre e o lder ch ildren, M.R.C., R.L. B., and A.B

.

On three occasio ns f ollowi ng this hea ring, h owev er, Am y too k the children to v isit

Robe rt in prison, w here he is currently serv ing a ten -y ear sent ence f or aggr avated assau lt

against a pu blic servant.

In Decem ber of 200 7, purp orted ly “to ge t s o m e e xt ra mo ney” f rom her f riend

W ayne, a ma n tha t she w as “kind of ” dat ing, Am y we n t o n a trip w ith W ayne in his “18-

w hee ler,” leaving he r f our children w ith neighbo rs. At the time of the trip, J.K.R. wa s s ix

mo nth s old. Am y lef

t f ood and diap ers w ith t h e neighbo rs and lef t a key to her hou se in

case the y ran out

. Am y testif ied tha t she expected to be gone f or a “f ew days.” Accordin g

3to Am y ’s testim ony, beca use the truck broke down and she misse d a bus in Dallas, she did

not ma ke it hom e w hen expected

. Accordin g to th e De p artm ent

, she w as gone f or

app rox ima tely eleven days. Am y cont acte d her CP S caseworker during this time

, and

inf orme d the casew orker that she w as going to help a f riend mo v e to Housto n and w ould

be gone f or on e d a y— n ot me ntion ing W ayne, the truck, or the ir stop s in Florida and

Geo rg ia. W hen Am y returne d f rom this trip, the Depa rtme nt remo v ed all f our children f rom

her cu stod y

.

Bet w een Decem ber of 200 7 and the dat e tha t the f inal orde r w as signed in this case

on May 29, 200 9, Am y w as arrested on tw o sepa rate occasio ns. First, Am y w as arrested

f or harb or in g a f ugitiv e in July of 200 8 w hen she allowed Robe rt’s broth er to stay in her

hom e. How ever, the record indicat es tha t f orma l charges w ere never f iled on this of f ense

.

Seco nd, in March of 200 9, jus t t wo m o n ths bef ore her term inatio n hea ring, Am y w as

arrested and indicte d f or posse s s io n of cocain e. T he record doe s not indicat e the f inal

dispo sition o f

this ch arge. Am y

de nied takin g drugs w ith Robert during the tim e th at sh e

and the children w ere liv ing w ith him

, but f o ll o win g this arrest, Am y sent a lette r to the

Depa rtme nt and to the atto rney ad litem f or the children atte mp ting to explain the charges

and ad mitt ing to h er coca ine u se. In t he lette r, Am y w rote,

On 3-20 -09 ar o u n d 2 :30 p.m

. a f riend picked me up beca use I w as f eeling

lone ly and dep ressed

. I decid ed to drink som e bee r. I have bee n f e e li ng

dep ressed f or over a y ear

. . . . My f riend a n d I e n d e d u p in a local bar. I

dran k several bee rs to try to f eel bet ter. An acquaint ance not iced tha t I w as

v ery dep ressed and of

f ered me som e cocain e. I didn ’t w ant to ma ke a scene

so I accep ted it an d p ut it in m y pa nt p ocket

.

Accordin g to Karen Sm ithey, Am y ’s CPS caseworker, w hen asking abo ut the lette r,

Am y said tha t she w ould test po sitiv e b ecau se sh e h ad take n so me of the drugs.

4On May 26, 2 0 0 9

, in a ben ch trial, the trial court hea rd the testim ony of Am y and

several oth er w itnesse s in a term inatio n hea ring initi a t e d by the Depa rtme nt. Cathe rine

Parson s-Key, who coun seled Am y and the t h re e olde r children

, testif ied tha t bot h of the

olde r boys reme mb er v iolence in the hom e f rom the time Am y and Robe rt w ere togeth er.

She also testif ied tha t, altho ugh Am y w as consiste nt w ith her atte nda nce of coun seling, in

h er opin ion, Am y lacked an “und erstan ding of the proce ss of action conse quence s. ”

Parson s-Key testif ied tha t she did not believe it w ould be in the best intere st of the children

to re turn the m to t heir m oth er.

Dr. Michelle Moran, a licensed psychologist w ho had perf or m e d a p sy cholo gical

evaluation of Am y in 200 7, testif ied at the hea ring tha t Am y had a perso nality disorde r w ith

“dep end ent a n d avoidant perso nality traits” includin g issues w ith self -estee m,

assertiveness, judgme nt, and goal-directed beh avior. Dr. Mora n c o nclud ed tha t if Am y

had cont inue d cont act w ith Robe rt and had used drugs, term inatio n of her pare nta l rig hts

w ould be in th e b est in terest of the children

.

Ad di ti on al l y

, Ka r en Sm i they

, the CPS caseworker, and Sta cie Marthiljohn i, the cou rtapp ointe d sp ecial a dvocate (“CASA”), each recom me nde d tha t Am y ’s pare nta l rig hts b e

term inate d b ased on w hat the y pe rceiv ed to b e a con tinue d d anger o f ab use.

I n its orde r dat ed May 28, 200 9, the trial court term inate d Am y ’s pare nta l ri gh t s

.

T his ap pea l ensu ed.

II. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

“Due proce ss requires the app lication of the clear and convincing evidence stan dard

o f proo f in pare nta l term inatio n cases. ” In re J.F.C.

, 96 S.W .3d 256

, 263 (Te x

. 200 2 ).

"Clea r and con v incing evidence me ans the m easu re or d egree o f proo f tha t w ill p rodu ce

in the min d of the trier of f act a f irm belief or conviction as to the truth o f t h e a ll e ga t ions

5sought to be esta blished ." Id

. at 264 (interna l quotat ions om itted ). T his stan dard of proo f

raises the burd en of proo f on the app ellee upo n app eal. “In a f a c t u a l s u f f iciency

rev iew

. . . a court of

appea ls mu st g iv e due consid eratio n to ev iden ce th at t he f actf inde r

could reaso nab ly have f oun d to be clear and convincing.” Id

. at 266 (citing In re C .H.

, 89

S.W .3d 17, 25 ( T ex. 200 2)). “If , in lig ht of the ent ire record, the disputed ev iden ce that a

reaso nab le f actf inde r could not have credite d in f avor of the f inding is so significan t tha t a

f actf inde r could not reaso nab ly have f orme d a f irm belief or conviction, the n the evidence

is f actu ally insuf

f icient.” Id. “Renditio n of judgme nt in f avor of the pare nt w ould generally

be required if

the re is legally

insuf f icient e v iden ce.” Id.

T he T exas Sup reme Court has instructe d tha t, “[t]he distinctio n bet w een legal and

f actu al suf

f iciency w hen the burd en of proo f is clear and convincing evidence ma y be a f ine

one in som e cases, but the re is a distinctio n in how the evidence is rev iew ed. ” Id

. “In

evaluating evidence f or legal suf f iciency und er a clear and convincing stan dard

, w e rev iew

all the evidence in the lig ht mo st f avorable t o t h e f inding to det ermin e w het her a

reaso nab le f actf inde r could have f orme d a f irm belief or convic t io n t hat the f inding w as

true. ” Sta t e v. K.E. W

. , 315 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Te x

. 201 0). “W e resolve dispu ted f act

question s in f avor of the f inding if a reaso nab le f a c t f in d e r could have don e so, and w e

disregard all cont rary evidence unle ss a reaso nab le f actf inde r could not have don e so.”

City of Keller v. W

ilson

, 168 S.W .3d 802

, 817 (Te x

. 200 5); In re J.F.C.

, 96 S.W .3d at 266

.

III. A N A L Y S I S

T he trial court term inate d Am y ’s pare nta l rig hts to the children pursuan t to section

161 .00 1 of the T exas Fam ily Code

, w hich provides tha t the pare nt-child relation ship ma y

be term inate d base d on any one o f n in e t e e n acts or om issions of a pare nt, alon g with a

f in d in g tha t the term inatio n is in the best intere st of the child. See T E X

. F A M

. C O D E A N N

.

6§ 161 .00 1; In re A.V.

, 113 S.W .3d 355

, 3 6 2 (T e x. 2 003 ) (“[T]h e purp ose of the Sta te's

intervention i n the paren t-child relationsh ip is to prote ct the best interest s of the children,

not to pun ish pare nts f or the ir cond uct.”). T here f ore, if the re w as legally and f actu ally

suf f icient evidence to supp ort the trial court’s f inding t h a t term inatio n w as in the best

intere st of the children

, the n any one

, individual gr oun d f or ter m in ation und er section

161 .00 1 is su f

f icient t o a f

f irm th e jud gmen t.

By her f irst issue, Am y

argues tha t the evidence prese nte d d uring the term inatio n

hea ring w as legally and f a c t u a lly insuf f icient to supp ort a f inding tha t term inatio n of the

pare nt-child relation ship w as in the children ’s best intere st. Spe cif ically

, Am y cont end s tha t

“the testim ony of the coun selor, CASA represe nta tiv e, CPS caseworker and psychologist

as to the best intere st of t h e c hildren did not esta blish by clea r and convincing e v iden ce

tha t te rmina tion w ould be in th e ch ildren’s b est in terest .” W e d isagree.

In accord ance w ith In re J.F.C

. , 9 6 S.W .3d at 266

, w e giv e due regard to the

f ollowi ng evidence tha t w e believe the trial court could have f oun d to b e c le a r a nd

convincing: (1) Am y f ailed to provide a stab le hom e f or the children , of ten movi ng in and

out of state hou sing and shelte rs, and f ailed to consiste ntly provide electricity and runn ing

w ate r in the hom e; (2) Am y displayed a desire to cont inue her relation ship w ith Robe rt by

v isiting him in prison af

ter his pare nta l rig hts w ere term inate d, desp ite her knowledge tha t

Robe rt w as abu siv e and a dan ger to the children ; (3) Am y ha d

, on occasio n, lef t her

children w ith neighbo rs f or extende d period s of time and had lied to caseworkers

conce rning her w here abo uts; (4) Am y adm itted to using cocain e and alcoh ol just w eeks

bef ore the hea ring; (5) Am y lacked the “und erstan ding” nece ssa ry to raise children ; (6)

Am y had a perso nality disorde r w ith “dep end ent and avoidant perso nality traits” includin g

issues with self -estee m, asse rtiv ene ss, jud gmen t, a nd goal-directed be havior; and (7) in

7the prof ession al opin ion s o f f our dif f eren t Depa rtme nt w itnesse s, it w ould be in the best

intere st of

the children to term inate Am y ’s pare nta l rig hts.

In our legal suf

f iciency rev iew

, w e “resolv e d is p u ted f act question s in f avor of the

f inding if a reaso nab le f a c t f in d e r could have don e so, and w e disregard all cont rary

evidence unle ss a reaso nab le f actf inde r could not have don e s o

. ” Ci t y o f Keller

, 168

S.W .3d at 817 ; In re J.F.C.

, 96 S.W .3d at 266

. A p p lyi n g t h is stan dard

, w e hold tha t the

f oregoing evidence w as legally suf f icient to allow a reaso nab le f actf inde r t o f orm a f irm

belief or conviction tha t it w as in the best intere st of the childr e n t o t e rm in ate Am y ’s

pare nta l rig hts. See K.E .W

. , 31 5 S .W .3d at 20.

In our f actu al suf

f iciency rev iew

, w e mu st ask w het her “the dispu ted evidence tha t

a reaso nab le f actf inde r could not have credite d in f avor of the f inding is so significan t tha t

a f actf inde r could not reaso nab ly have f orme d a f irm belief or conviction.” See In re J.F.C.

,

96 S.W .3d at 266

. Here, w e w eigh Am y ’s evidence tha t she regularly atte nde d coun seling,

tha t she w as liv ing in a stab le hom e, had a job clean ing hou ses, and tha t all relation s w ith

Robe rt w ere severed beca use he w as serv ing an extende d prison sent ence

. W e cann ot,

howev er, say

that this ev iden ce is so significan t as to prevent the f actf inde r f rom f ormin g

a f irm belief or conviction tha t term inatio n o f A m y’s pare nta l rig hts w as in the children ’s

best intere st. See id

. T h e re f o re

, w e hold tha t the evidence w as f actu ally suf f icient to

supp ort th e trial co urt’s f inding. A ccordingly , we overr ule A my’s f irst issue.

Ha v ing h eld tha t the re w as legally and f actu ally suf f icient evidence to supp ort the

f inding tha t it w as in the children ’s best inte rest to term inate Am y ’s pare nta l rig hts, if an y

o n e o f the three gr oun ds upo n w hich the trial court base d its judgme nt is supp orted by

legally an d f actu ally

suf f icient e v iden ce, we m ust a f f irm th e jud gmen t.

8By her secon d issue, Am y challen ges the f irst gr oun d on w hich the judgme nt is

base d as not bein g supp orted by legally and f actu ally suf f icient evidence. Spe cif ically

, she

argues tha t the trial court’s f inding t h a t she “knowi ngly place d or knowingl y allowed the

c h il d re n to rema in in cond itions or surroun dings w hich end anger[e d the ir] physical or

em otion al w ell-being” w as not supp orted by legally and f actu ally suf f icient evidence. See

T E X

. F A M

. C O D E A N N . § 161 .00 1(1)(D) (Vernon 20 08).

App ly ing our stan dard f or legal suf f iciency, w e look s p e c if ically to the evidence

prese nte d at trial tha t Am y : (1) had previously not kept a stab le liv ing environme nt; (2) kept

the children in a v iolent hom e w hich had af f ecte d the tw o olde r boys significan tly ; (3) too k

t h e c h ild ren, includin g J.K.R., to v isit Robe rt in prison, desp ite knowledge of Robe rt ’s

v iolent an d a busive ten den cies; (4) had not held a st able job; (5) allowed th e th ree o lder

children to be prese nt w hile Robe rt dran k and used drugs; and (6) adm itted to using

cocain e. W e hold tha t the f oregoing evidence w as legally suf f icient to allow a reaso nab le

f actf inde r to f orm a f irm belief or conviction tha t Am y had knowingl y place d or allowed the

chil d re n t o rema in in cond itions or surroun dings w hich end angered the ir physical or

em otion al well- bein g. See K.E .W

. , 31 5 S .W .3d at 20.

Similarly, app ly ing our stan dard f or f actu al suf f iciency, w e not e tha t Am y te s t if ie d

during the trial tha t ma ny o f the se events w ould not recur, sp ecif ically , be cause she had

obt aine d em ploymen t, had an app ropriate liv ing space

, and w ould no longer have cont act

w ith Robe rt. Again, howev er, w e do not believe this evidence is so significan t as to prevent

the fact f inde r f rom f ormin g a f irm be lief or co nviction tha t Am y ha d p rev iously com mitt ed

the statu torily proscribed act of knowingl y placing or allowi ng the children to rema in in

cond itions or surroun dings w hich end angered the ir physical or em otion al w ell-being. See

9In re J.F.C

. , 9 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t 266

. Add itiona lly

, w e not e tha t the statu te doe s not require a

likelihood of repe tition in orde r to allow the court to term inate the pare nt-child relation ship.

See T E X

. F A M

. C O D E A N N

. § 161 .00 1(1)(D) (“The court ma y orde r term inatio n of the pare ntchild relation ship if the court f inds by clear and convincing evidence tha t the pare nt has

. . .

knowingl y place d or k n o win gly allowed the child to rema in in cond itions or surroun dings

w hich end anger the physical or em otion al w ell-being of the child

. . . . ” (emp hasis add ed)).

For the f oregoing reaso ns, w e hold tha t the evidence w as f actu ally suf f icient to supp ort the

trial cou rt’s f inding. A ccordingly , we overr ule A my’s secon d issue

.

Havi ng f oun d one ground up on w hich the judgme nt w as supp orted by legally an d

f actu ally suff icient evi den ce, w e need not address w het her the court’s oth er tw o g roun ds

f or d e c ision und er subse ctions (E) and (O) of section 161 .00 1 of the f am ily code w ere

supp orted by legally and f actu ally suf f icient evidence, and the re f o re

, n e ed not add ress

Am y ’s third and f ourth issues. See T E X

. F A M

. C O D E A N N

. §§ 161 .00 1(1)(E), (O) (Ve rnon

200 8); see also T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 47. 1.

IV. C O N C L U S I O N

Finding no m eritorious issue o n a ppe al, we af f irm th e trial co urt’s orde rs.

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GINA M. B ENAVI DES,

Justice

Deliv ered an d f iled th is the

10t h d ay of

Feb ruary, 2011

.

10