Counsel’s pendingmotion to wit hdrawis gr anted. 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 548 -CV

M ic he lle Kilpa tr ic k- Lusk , A ppe lla nt

v . Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2059 69- B , HO NORAB LE GORDO N G. ADAMS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Miche lle Kilpatrick-L usk appea ls from the district court’ s judgme nt terminating her pa

renta l rig hts to her two childre n. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed counsel has f iled a motion to withdraw ac companied by an An de rs brief, as s er t i n g t h at, af ter a conscie ntious and profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord, he be lieves the a pp ea l is frivolous beca

use the re cord demonstrates no a

rguable g rounds for r ever sal. Se e An ders v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 741-44 (1 96 7) ; Tay lor v . Te

x as De p’ t of Pr ote c tiv e & Re

gu lator y Se rv s. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). T he State agree s that an An de rs b r ie f is appropr iate. I nterve nors at the tria l court hav e al s o filed an a ppellate br ief urg ing the court to af firm the trial court’s judg ment. Appellant has f iled a re sponse to the An de rs bri ef
. W e af fi rm the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt. 1As a membe r of the Army , appellant was obligated to participate in various fie ld exercises that 2 require d her to lea

ve the c hildren. She also ser ved at lea st one tour of duty in I raq. 2 Th e statut or

y g ro un ds all eg e d f

or te rm inatio n w e re that a

pp e lla nt ( 1) kn ow ing ly place d or knowing ly

allowed the children to r emain in c onditions or surrounding s that endang ere d the phy sical or e motional well-beingof the c hildren; and (2) eng ag ed in conduct or knowing ly place d the child with persons who eng ag ed in conduct that endang ere d the phy sical or e motional well-being of the c hildren. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann
. § 161.001(1)( D), (E ) (West Supp. 2006). The fa ctual bases f or the ter mination procee ding inc luded appe llant’s participation in the death of the children’ s fathe r and pla ceme nt of the children with he r mother, who had a history of abusive be havior. Our independe nt reviewof the re cord suppor ts counsel’s dec ision to file an An de rs brief. Robert Mozier and Miche lle Kilpatrick met a nd marrie d while in the Army , which is w h e r e th e y

b e c ame a c qu a inte d

w it h D o n a ld Lu s k
. M o zi e r , th e c h il dr e n ’ s f a th e r , w a s r e p o rted “missing” in October

2000. One month later , appellant a nd the childre n moved in with Lusk and appellant divorc ed Mozier. She marrie d Lusk in November 2001. L usk and appe llant were arr ested for murde ring Mozi er in August 2004. Lusk admitted beating Mozi er to de ath. Mozi er’ s body was
never found; Lusk claimed that he and appe llant threw the body in a dumpster. Du ri ng the ap pro x im ate ly

fou r-y ear p eri odbetwe e n a pp e lla nt b e g inn ing

to r e sid e wi th Lus k a nd the arr e st, a

pp e lla nt f re quent ly lef

t th e c hil dr e n in

Lus k’ s c are fo r u

p to thi rt y da y s at a tim e . Ap pe lla

nt al so le ft

the c hil dr e n w ithLus k’ s mo the r i n Ca lif or nia wh o th e n d e c ide d s he c ou ld 2 not keep the children and “g ave” them to an aunt and unc le of L usk’s. That plac ement fa iled, and appellant a sked her

mother to come to Te x as to ca re for the c hildren. Appe llant testified that her3

mot he r a bu se d h e r p hy sic a lly , e mot ion a lly , a nd me nta lly duri ngher c hi ldh oo d a

nd on c e , w hil e intox icated, tried to kill appellant. Appellant was in foste r ca re nume rous times, including the y ear s from ag es four

teen to eig hteen. Appe llant’s mother had a long history of drugand alc ohol abuse. Appellant admitted that despite this history , she didnot ask intervenor s, Mozi er’ s pare nts, to care for the c hild but ins tead lef t them with her mother. W h en ar re s ted in Aug ust 2004, appellant told the children that she had done something ba d and wa s g oing to jail. At t ri al , al t houg h she invoked he r F ifth Amendment rig ht ag ainst self-incr imination e v er y time she was que stioned about Mozier’s disappea ranc e and he r possible involvement, she admitted that she wa s incarc erated bec ause L usk confessed that he killed someone.

There was e vidence that termination was in the be st interest of the c h ildren. They
we re in c ouns e lin g , an d the ir g ra de s had imp ro ve d to As and B s. Th e Mo zie rs ha d s e c ur e d b e ne fi ts that the childre n wer e entitled to re ceive beca use their f ather died on active duty . The Moziers, ag es 49 and 50 , d e sir e d to ra ise the c hil dr e n to a du lth oo d a s th e ir g ra nd c hil dr e n b e c a

us e a do pti on

wo uld result in the loss of some benef its. The case worke r testified that “ all repor ts had bee n nothing but positive” while the c hildren we re in inter venors’ car e. The c hildren’s guardia n ad litem testified that he thoug ht further

contac t betwee n appellant a nd the children would be harmful a nd rec ommended te rm inatio n, a s d id t

he c hil dr e n’ s atto rn e y

a d li te m. Counsel review ed the a

rguments ag ainst termination raised at trial. He notes that one argument ra i sed at trial wa s that termination was pre mature be cause appellant ha d not y et bee n convicted of

the underlying criminal char g es. Appe llant participate d in the termination hea ring byAp pe lla nt’ s p ro se br ie f i nf

or ms u s that, as a res ul t of a pl e a ba rg a in, sh e is o n p ro batio n in 3 No rt h Ca ro lin a . B e c a

us e no oth e r c ha

rg e s a re dis c us se d, it i s a

reas on a ble inf e re nc e that th is sentenc e is for the char g e as a n acc essory

in the husband’s murde r. 4 te le ph on e fr om N or

th C aro lin a

and , a c tin g on the a dv ic e of c ouns e l, “ too k the F if th” wi th r e g ard

to any questions a

bout the murder. I

n g ener al, the exerc ise of the pr ivilege ag ainst self-incr imination should not be penalized. Howeve r, i n a civil case the fact-finde r can draw a neg ative infe renc e fr om t h e assertion of the privileg e. See I n re C.J.F. , 1 3 4 S
. W
. 3 d

3 4 3 , 3 5 2
- 3 5 3 ( T e x. Ap p .—Am a ri llo 20 03 , p e t. d e nie d) (t e rmin a tio n) ; Texas Capital Secs., Inc. v . Sandefer , 58 S.W .3d 760, 779 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n [ 1 s t Di s t
. ] 2 0 0 1 , p et
. d en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Baxter v . Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1 97 6) ). F ur

the r, the ba sis fo r t e rm inati on wa s n ot s ole ly a pp e lla nt’ s a lle g e d invo lve me nt i n Mozi er’ s murder, but a lso appellant’s a cts in leavingthe children w ith a car etake r who ha d a history of a bu se and wh o a c tua lly

a bu se d o ne of th e chi ld ren and wi th t he pe rs on wh o c on fe sse d to murderingthe childre n’s father. 3

Couns e l a lso no te s th e argume nt t hat th e c ourt sh ou ld n ot h a ve c on sid e re d th e a bu se complaint made a g ainst appellant’s mot h er as evide nce a g ainst appellant in this termination proce eding b ec au se the c hildren we re r eturne d to appellant af ter a hear ing. A t the time that the
c hil dr e n w e re re tur

ne d to a pp e lla nt, ho we ve r, sh e ha d n ot ye t be e n a rr e ste d f or he r pa rt ic ipatio n in Mo zie r’ s murd e r an d it wa s still po ssi ble fo r h e r t o p art ic ipate in s e rv ic e s d e signe d to ke e p th e fa mil y toge ther. The return of

the childre n at t h at t i me does not neg ate the r eleva nce in the te rmination proce edingof appe llant having left the c hildren in dang erous surrounding s. Finally , counsel a rg ued that appellant’ s rig hts did not need to be terminated beca use t he Moz iers we re not see king a doption.5

An adoption place ment is not a prer equisite to fin d i n g t h at a pare nt has committed one of the g rounds for te rmination and that termination is the child’s be st interest.

I n her pr o se brief

, appellant state s that she i s not asking for phy sical custody of her
c hil dr e n a nd a c kn owled ges t

hat th e y are in a sta ble e nv ir on me nt w iththe ir pate rn a l g ra

nd pa re nts
. She details her e ffor

ts to complete various rec overy prog rams. She states she is asking only “to be allowed to wr ite and call my children to let them know I love them.” This Court does not have the po we r t o g ra

nt t his re qu e st. Our re view of the rec ord shows clea r and convincing evidenc e in support of the tria l court’s de cision to terminate appe llant’s pare ntal rig hts and supports counsel’s deter mination that the re are no argua

ble g ro un ds fo r r e ve rs a l. A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 16, 2006