NO. 07-09 -001 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 D JU LY20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE INT EREST OF C.H., T.H. AND S.H., CHILDREN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 39 5 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF W IL L IA MS ON COU NT Y; NO . 07- 1763- F395 ; H ON ORABLE MI CH AEL J ER GIN S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
T hrou gh tw o issues, fath er and mot her ap pea l the f inal o rd e r of the trial court ter minat ing thei r par ental r ig hts to C. H. , T.H. and S.H

. In t hei r firs t i ss ue, t hey co ntend the ev ide nce at tr ial w as factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g thatter minat ion of paren tal rig hts w as in the best int er estof each chi ld. I n the ir se cond is sue, they

arg ue if thei r firs t is sue is sus tai ned w e shoul d v acat e the tr ial cour t’ s appoi ntment of appell ee, the Tex as Dep ar

tment of Fami ly

and Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es, as so le manag ing co nser v ator of the c hil dr en. W e ov er ru le the firs t iss ue of f ather and mother , do not reac h their se cond is sue, and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.2 Di sc uss ion
The De par

tment’ s p eti ti on to ter minat e the parental r ig hts of father and moth er w as tr ied to the c our

t on Dec ember

2, 2008. Th e depar

tment pr esent ed i ts cas e- in- chi ef throug h the tes ti mony

of a C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es inv est ig ator and a cas ew or ker

. Fat her and moth er

tes ti fied on thei r ow n behal v es. At the time o f

trial C .H., T .H. and S.H. w ere four t e e n , t hirtee n an d six y ears old re spec ti v ely . The re cord show s that betw een 2004 and 2007, the Depar tment inv est ig ated nine referrals inv olvi ng f a t h e r and m oth er. Th e repo rts included claims of dom estic
v iol ence, abus e and neg lec t of the chi ldren, a nd us e of coc ain e, ec sta sy and me tha mp het am ine by fa the r and m oth er. Acc ordin g to mother ’s tes ti mony , w hen C. H. w as thi rt een she all ow ed hersel f t o be arre s ted for shop lift ing i n place of mot her, be cause mot her ha d an outst and ing arrest
w ar ra nt for

pos ses si on of a controll ed subst ance. F ather and mother

al so ack now led g ed another eve n t th a t led to a repor t of abus e and neg lec t w hen a w eapon w as dis charg ed dur ing an a rg ument be tw een t hem w hil e C .H . w as pr esent

. Moth e r te st if ied father threatened to commi t s uic ide

. The De par tment w as unabl e to fully i nv est igate a ll the re por ts becau se father and mother re g ula rl y mov ed. The De par

tment inv est ig ator

l is ted sev en repor

ts w it h respec t to w hic h the Depar tment w as “un abl e to loc ate the famil y .” The tr ial co ur

t found t hei r freq uent mov es a m o u nted to a failu re to coope ra te w it h the Depa rtme nt by fa the r and m oth er.Brief testim ony indicate d a trespa ss ch arge was filed against mo the r as the result 1 of her re mov al of T.H. and S. H. from t he pl acement , and thatmother w as ar re ste d and re lea sed on th at c harg e w hen s he retur ned t o Tex as in 2008. 3 In M ay 2007, father and moth er w er e ar re ste d i n the presenc e of the chi ldren. In the resul ti ng abs ence of their par ents , t he c hil dr en s tay ed w it h father ’s si ste r. I n an interview in her hom e w ith the Departm ent , the children expressed fear of their paren ts.
The De par

tment w as named tem p o ra ry manag ing co nser

v ator of the c hil dr en on Aug ust7, 2007. The follo w ing day it dis cov er ed mother had remov ed T.H . and S.H . from thei r aunt’ s h ome, l eav ing C .H

. C .H . chose to re main becau se she bel iev ed her parents 1 cont inu ed us ing methamphet amine. F ather and mother

di d notretur n S. H. and T.H. to the custo dy of

the Dep artm entd e s p it e a n o rder placing the ch ildren in foste r care. Rather, they left the stat e and mov ed to South Caroli na, w her e members o f mother’ s famil y l iv e. Acc ordin g to mother , So uth C aroli na s oci al ser v ic es personne l w er e aw ar e of the si tuati on and met w it h her

sh ortl y after thei r ar ri v al in South Caroli na. In Jun e 2 0 08, mot her

w as ar re ste d i n Sout h C aroli na and charg ed w it h felony ass aul t and batt er

y . As a resul t, she w as inc ar cerated in South Caroli na from J une 15, 2008, unti l obtai nin g relea se on b ond on Aug ust19. Ac cordin g to the t ri al tes ti mony of mother , t he Sou th C aroli na c harg es w er e reduc ed to a mis demeanor w it h a pendi ng pl ea barg ain offer

of three y ears p ro bati on. The Dep artment est abl is hed famil y se rv ic e pl ans for fath er and mot her but by the time o f trial neithe r had f ulf illed all their plan requirem ent s. At t ri al, mother

ac know led g ed s ubst anti al pr ior dr ug us e butdeni ed us ing methamp h etami ne dur ing the pr ecedi ng y ear . She further ac know led g ed at tempti ng to4

par e n t th e c hil dr en unde r the i nfluenc e of il leg al dr ug s b etw een 200 4 and Aug ust2007. The cas ew or ke r a gre ed th at mot her admi tted hav ing a probl em w it h c ry sta l methamphetam in e . M o th e r re cei v ed tw o dr ug tes ts as par t of her se rv ic e pl an. Both produce d neg ati v e resul ts. About fiv e months before tr ial , a hai r folli cl e dr ug tes t of father
w as posi ti v e fo r coc ain e, mar ij uana an d benz odi az epi ne. The tes t meas ur ed th e precedi ng nin ety day s. D ur ing thi s p er iod father had poss ess ion of T.H. and S.H

. F ather offer ed no explanat ion for the te st result. Mothe r testif ied she last saw fath er use m arijuan a in April 200 8. Fath er averred h e last use d ma rijuana some f iv e mo nth s before trial. He ack now led g ed a pr ior

ch arg e of poss ess ion of methampheta mine, and ag re ed to prev iou s abuse of thi s drug

. He chos e notto atten d Al cohol ic s A nony mous o r Narcot ic s A nony mous but i denti fied peer

press ur e as a t ri g g er

for h is us e of il leg al dr ug s. In a j ail i nter v iew w it h the D epar

tment, mother

st ated that she a n d f a th e r had us ed i ll eg al dr ug s t o the poi nt of los ing ev er

ythi ng . At the time o f

trial, mot h e r a n d f a t h e r ea ch w ere w orking at tw o jobs. Both were paying child sup po rt

. F a t her liv ed wi th his sister. Evi den ce of the sta bility

of this env ironment w as not pre se n ted. Ac cordin g to father, he w as enroll ed i n a tw o- y ear communi ty

co ll eg e prog ra m le adi ng to an assoc iat e’s degree in c onst ru cti on manag ement. He added t hat h is father ag re ed to pay

the ex pense s o f his educ ati on. After mother ’s Ju ne 2008 ar re st, Sout h C aroli na aut hor it ie s cooperat ed w it h the Dep artment. A Dep artment employ ee re tur ned T.H. and S.H

. to Tex as, w her e the y j oin ed C. H. i n a p lac ement w it h the ir pate rn al g ra ndparents

. T h e D epar tment made ar ra ng ements for e ach chi ld to recei v e the ra py . In t he opi nio n of the cas ewo rk er , t he5

sc hool performanc e of

the chi ldren w as acc eptabl e. He als o ag re ed th at t he g ra ndparental pla cementw as appropr iat e to meet t he need s o f the c hil dr en. Accordin g to th e case w orker, the children “act ou t” w hen conta cted bymot her. Al th ou g h no t c l ea r l y ex pres s ed by th e r ec ord, i t ap pe ars C .H

. w as i n fos te r c are for a t i me dur ing her

parents ’ sta y

i n South Caroli na. In the pla cement , she dest ro y ed proper ty and “acted out. ” On the day of trial, T. H. w as involv ed in an altercatio n at scho ol w ith a tea cher. The pol ic e w er e s ummoned and T.H. w as charg ed w it h di sorderly c o nduct

. It w as expected he w ould a lso receive in-school suspe nsion . Althou gh C.H., T.H. an d S.H. did nottesti fy a t trial, the record e stab lishes the ir cl ear op positio n to te rmina tion. The ir guardian ad litem told the court the children “desp erate ly ” w ant ed to be reun ited wi th th eir par ents

. The cas ew or ker agreed it is not unusu al for chi ldren to w ant t o be re uni ted w it h thei r par ents , reg ardle ss of pr ior abus e. The cas ew or ker

opi ned t hat b ecaus e of father’ s pr ior choi ces he w oul d be a dang er t o t h e c h i l d r e n . I tw a s a l s o h i s o p i n i o n t h a t n e i t h e r p a r e n t w a s c a p a b l e o f p ro v i d i n g a s a fe env ironment for the chi ldren. He did not b eli ev e i t w as in the b esti nterestof the c hil dr en to w aitfor father

and mother

to compl ete t hei r family se rv ic e pl ans. At t he c oncl usi on of

tri al, the cour

t t er minat ed th e parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p betw een father and moth er

an d C .H ., T.H. and S.H . and appoi nted the D epar tment manag ing conse rv ato r. It m a d e f in d in gs tha t fath er and mot her 1) knowingl y placed or know ingly“‘Enda nger’ mea ns to expose to loss or injury ; to jeop ardize.” Te xas D ep’ t of 2 Hum an Ser

vs . v . Boyd, 727 S. W .2d 5 31, 5 33 ( Tex

. 1 9 87)

. Al thoug h “ ‘en dang er ’ means more than a threat of met aphy si cal inj ur y or the poss ibl e il l eff ect s o f a le ss-t han- ide al environme nt, it is not ne cessary that the co ndu ct be directe d at the ch ild o r that th e child actu ally suf fer injury .” Id. Il lega l d ru g use by parents or

ca re g iv ers s uppor

ts the concl us i on th at th e c hi l dren ’ s s ur rou nd i ng s en da ng er th ei r ph y s i c al an d em ot i on al w ellbei ng . In r

e J .T .G. , 121 S.W .3d 117 , 125 (Tex.App .–Fo rt W orth 20 03, no pe t.).
6 allowed the childre n to rem ain in con dition s or surround ings w hich en dan gered their 2 phy si cal or

emoti onal w ell -b ein g ; 2) eng ag ed i n c onduc t or know ing ly

placed the chi ldren w ith pe rsons w ho engaged in cond uct w hich end angered the ph y sical or emo tiona l w ellbei ng of the c hil dr en; and 3) faile d to c omply w it h a c our

t order sp eci fical ly

es tabl is hed t o obtain r e tu rn of the c hil dr en. Tex . F amil y C ode An n. § 161.001 (1 )( D) ,( E) ,( O) ( Ver non 2008)

. It further found mother cons tr uct iv ely abandoned C .H

. Tex . F amil y C ode An n. § 161.001 (1 )( N) ( Ver non 200 8)

. Ana ly sis
Fat her and mother

ac know led g e the ev ide nce suffici ently su ppor ts at l eastone ter minat ion g ro und. Thro ug h the ir first is sue they

arg ue, h ow ev er, th e e videnc e w as factual ly i nsuffici ent to suppo rt the findi ng of t he tr ial cour t t hat t er minat ion of the p ar entchi ld re lat ion shi p w as in the b esti nterestof the chi ldren. Their arg ument rest s o n the expressed de sire of

the childre n to rem ain w ith the ir parents. In a proceed ing to ter minat e the pa re n t- ch il d rela ti onshi p broug ht un der se cti on 161.001 of the F amil y C ode, the p eti ti oner

must e st a b lis h one g ro und l is ted u nder subdi v is ion ( 1) of the s tatut e and must als o prov e that termi nati on is in the besti nterestof7

the c hil d. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 161.001 ( Ver non 200 8) ; In r e J .L., 163 S. W .3d 7 9, 84 (Tex . 200 5)

. W hen rev iew ing the ev ide nce for factua l suffici ency , i n a p ro ceedi ng to ter minat e the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p, t he c our t of appeal s c onsi ders t he ent ire record and deter mines w hether

a factfinder

could r eason abl y

for m a f ir m bel ief or

co nv ic ti on th at bo th sta tutor y el ements for t er minat ion hav e been sat is fied. In r e C .H ., 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 7 , 2 8 (T e x. 2002)

. “‘ If, in li g ht of t he enti re re cord, t he di sput ed ev ide nce that a reason abl e factfinde r could not cred it in fa v or of the f inding is so sig nif icant th at a factf inde r could no t reason ably form a f irm belief

or convi ction in th e truth of its fin d ing, then the evidence is fact ually insuf f icient.’” In r

e H .R .M., 20 9 S. W .3 d 10 5, 1 08 ( Tex

. 200 6) (q u o ti ng In r e J .F.C ., 96 S.W .3d 2 56, 2 66 ( Tex . 200 2) ). Ther e i s a st ro ng presumpt ion thatke epi ng a c hil d w it h a par ent is in the best int er est of t he chi ld. In r e R .R ., 209 S.W .3d 112, 116 (Tex . 2006). It is al so pr esumed that prompt and per manent p lac ement of the chi ld in a s afe env ironment is i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 263.307 (a ) (V er non 200 8)

. The Supreme C our

t of Tex as has ide nti fied f act ors for consi derati on bythe tr ier of fact i n det er mini ng w hether ter minat ion i s i n the best interestof the chi ld: the desi re s o f the chi ld; the emoti onal and phy si cal needs of the chi ld now and in the future; t he emoti onal and p h y s i c a l d a n g e r t o t h e c h i l d n o w a n d i n t h e fu t u r e ; t h e p a r e n t a l a b i l i t i e s o f t he ind iv idu als se eki ng cu sto dy ; the prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t t hese ind iv idu als to promote the best inte rest of

the child; the pla ns for the child by the se individuals or by the agency seek ing cu sto dy ; the stabi li ty of the home or propos ed plac ement; the a cts or omi ss ion s of the pa re n t wh ic h m ay indicat e tha t the ex isting parent-ch ild relationsh ip is not prop er; and any ex cus e for

the act s or omis si ons of the parent. Hol ley v. Adam s, 544 S. W .2d 3 67,8

372 (Tex. 1976 ). H owev er, the se con siderat ions are n ot exhau stiv e no r is proo f of each a c ondi ti on precede nt t o ter minat ion of the p ar ent- chi ld re lat ion shi p. In re C. H. , 89 S. W .3d at 27. The absen ce of ev ide nce of s ome of the Hol ley co nsi derati ons does not p re cl ude the factfinder

from reason abl y

formi ng a s trong co nv ic ti on or bel ief tha t t er minat ion is in the chi ld’ s b esti nteres t, parti cul ar ly i n the face of undi sput ed ev ide nce that the p ar ental re lat ion shi p endan g er ed th e s afetyof the c hil d. Id. The besti nterestanal y si s e v alu ates the b esti nterestof the c hil d, no t t he parent. In r e S. A. P., 169 S. W .3d 6 85, 7 07 (Te x .Ap p.– W aco 2 005 , no pe t.).
The ev ide nce suppo rt ing the sta tutor y g ro unds for ter minat ion may als o be used to suppo rt a findi ng that the besti nterestof the c hil dr en w ar ra nts ter minat ion of the p ar entchi ld re lat ion shi p. In r e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d a t 28; In r e P. E.W., 1 0 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 1, 77 9 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2003 , n o p et.)

. And a best -i nterestanal y si s may co nsi der ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, su bje cti v e factors, and t he total ity of the e v ide nce as w ell as the directev ide nce. In r

e S. H. A., 728 S.W .2d 73, 86 -87 (Te x .Ap p.– Dallas 198 7, w rit ref ’d
n.r.e .). A trier of

fact m ay me asure a paren t’s f u ture con ductbyhis or her past con duct and det er mine that iti s i n the ch il d’s bes t i nterestto ter minat e parental r ig hts

. In r e D .L.N., 958 S.W .2d 934, 94 1 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1997, pet. deni ed) , over ru led on o ther gr ounds by In r e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d a t 26.
The chi ldren desi re the aff ect ion s and n u rt u re o f thei r natural par ents , a fact th e Dep artment poi nted out i s n ot aty pic al, des pit e pas t abu se in a famil y . But the d esi re of the c hil dr en al one i s n ot de ter minat iv e of thei r besti nterest

. The law recog niz es w hat9

v ir tual ly ev er y parent k now s, “[w]hat chi ldren w ant . . . is not alw ay s in thei r besti nterest .” Phi lli p s v. T

ex. D ep’

t of Pr otec ti ve & R egul

ator y S er vs ., 25 S. W .3d 3 48, 3 56 (Te x .Ap p.–Aust in 200 0, no pet .). Here, the und ispute d facts prese nt a histo ry of fath er’s and mot her’s instab ility in relationsh ips, em ploymen t and hom e life. Pu n c t uat ing these acc ounts w er e epi sodes of abuse of i ll eg al dr ug s i ncl udi ng methamphet amine, and other act s o f bad condu ct by father and mother

. Fat her ’s tes ti monial sel f-ex pr ess ion of sobr iety lac ked a c or ro borati ng anc hor i n the record

. F a ther co uld not acc ount for th e recent posi ti v e hai r folli cl e dr ug tes t and ch ose not t o att end add ic ti on s uppor t g ro ups. R eg ula r ev asi v e f amil y

m ov es w er e the parents ’ means of deal ing w it h the Depar tment. Orders o f the c our t affecti ng the chi ldren w er e di sreg arded. W hen s tress rose in 2007, father and mother found i t ex pedi ent t o remov e T.H . and S.H . from pla cementand f le e the st ate. Des p i t e i n v o l v e me n tw i t h t h e D e p a rt me n tfo r w e l l o v e r

a y e a r , fa t h e r

a n d m o t h e r

d i d not compl ete t hei r family

se rv ic e pl ans. F ather

l iv es in Tex as and mother in South Caroli na. How thi s a rrang ement w oul d s er v e the bes t i nterestof the c hil dr en w as not show n. Fat her
v oic ed lau dabl e personal educa ti on and career pla ns but at the ti me of t ri al had no prov en job hi sto ry

and li v ed w it h his si ste r. The tr ial cour t coul d hav e v iew ed mothe r’ s focus to be on resol uti on of

her pending South Caroli na cri minal charg es. The tri al ev ide nce show ed pla cementof the chi ldren w it h their g ra ndparents , des pit e the probl ems atsc hool of T.H. , w as suffici ent for

the needs of the c hil dr en. Mo st impor

tantly , how ev er , j uxtapos ed w it h the des ire of the chi ldren for re uni ficat ion w it h the ir

parents are the tr ial co urt’ s u nchal len g ed findi ng s t hat father and mother endang er ed the phy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of the c hil dr en. To re tur n c hil dr enFat her and mother

poi nt t o In r

e S. R. L., 243 S. W .3d 2 32 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th 3 Di st. ] 200 7, no pet. ); Yonk o v . D e p ’ t of F am il y a nd Pr

ot. Ser vs ., 196 S. W .3d 2 36 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD i s t

. ] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t

. ) ; a n d In re C .T .E., 95 S. W .3d 4 62 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st D ist.] 2002, pet. deni ed) as ex amples of cas es re v ersi ng judgme nts of

termin ation on the factu al insuf f iciency of

e v iden ce sup portin g a be st interest f inding. But fath er and mot her c a ndid ly add thateach of

those cases is distinguishab le from the one atbar

. W e ag re e. There w as ev ide nce in each of those cases t h a t the ter minat ed parents had show n a l ev el of res ponsi bil ity and commi tment to pa re nti ng that is abs ent from thi s record. 10 to an endang er ing env ironment d oes not s er v e the ir bes t i nterest d e sp it e ex pr ess ed af fection s. Al thoug h a c hil d’s l o ve o f hi s n atural par ents i s a v er y i mport ant cons ide ra ti on i n det er mini ng the besti nterest s o f the c hil d, i t c annot ov er ri de or outw eig h the ov er

w hel ming and undi sput ed ev ide nce sh o wi ng thatthe pare nts pla ced o r allow ed th e child to rema in in cond itions, a nd e ngaged in cond uct or place d the child w ith pe rson s w ho e ngaged in cond uct, which end ang e rs t h e p hysical and emo tiona l w ell-being of the child. The child’s lov e of hi s p ar ents ca nnot compens ate for the lac k of an opport uni ty to g ro w up i n a n or mal and s afe w ay eq uip p e d t o l ive a nor mal, product iv e, an d sat is fyi ng l ife.
In r e W.S.M., 107 S.W .3d 772 , 773 (Tex.App –T exarkana 20 03, no pe t.).
Gi v en th e unc hal len g ed findi ngs and s uppor ti ng ev ide nce, w e c oncl ude, notw it hst andi ng the desi re of the chi ldren, the tr ial cour t coul d hav e formed a firm bel ief or conviction tha t term inati o n of the pa renta l ri ghts of

fath er and mot her w as in the best intere st of

the childre n. W e overrule the f irst issue of fath er and mot her. 3
Con cl usi on Beca use we ov errule the f irst issue of fa t h e r and m oth er, w e do not rea ch the ir sec ond i ss ue, w hic h i s c ondi ti oned on su sta ini ng thei r firs t i ss ue. See T e x. R. App. P.11

47.1. W e aff ir m the final order of t he tr ial cour t ter minat ing the p ar ental r ig hts of father and mo the r to C.H., T.H. an d S.H.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice