i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 34 0- CV IN THE INT EREST OF S.M. , I .T., and J.D.T., Chil dren Fr om the 79th J udicial District Court, J im W ells County , Texas

Trial Court No. 06-10-45136 Honora ble Ricardo H. G arc ia, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 31, 2008 AF F I RME D I

N PA RT; REV ERS ED I

N PA RT The motion for re hear ing f iled by appellant is g rante d in part. This court’s opinion and ju d g me n t d a te d

O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 ar e w it

h dr aw n , an d

th is o p in io nan d

o r d e r ar e s u b s ti tute d
. We g rant the motion for rehe aring as to the issue relating to the appointment of L .S.M. as possessory conser vator. B ACKG ROUND The trial c ourt appointed the Te x as De partment of Family and Protec tive Service s as mana g ingc on se rv a tor

ov e r L .S. M. ’s three ch il dre n w ith out te rm inatin g L .S. M. ’s pa re nta l r ig hts
. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.404 (Ve rnon 2002). Afte r a he aringpursuant to sec tion 263.405(d)04
- 08
- 00 34 0- CV

1 ... I n response to the opportunity the trial cour

t ga ve the pa rties to file additional brief ing afte r the he aring , the Depa rtment submitted a brief a ddressingwhether L .S.M.’s appea l would be frivolous; howeve r, L .S.M. did not submit a brief.

- 2- o f t h e T ex as Fa m i l y

C o d e a n d

af t er al l o wi n g t h e p ar t i es t o fi l e a d d i t i o n al b ri ef i n g, 1 the trial cour

t found that L .S.M. is not indige nt, and her appea l from the trial court’s or der w ould be frivolous. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d) (Vernon Supp. 2008). L .S.M. contends the trial court a bused its dis c re tio n in

makin g tho se fi nd ing s.

F R IVO LO U S A P P E AL We reviewa trial c ourt’s dete rmination that an appe al is frivolous under a n abuse of discretion standa

rd. In reW

.B .W ., J r. , 2 S.W .3d 421, 422 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). An appe al is frivolous when it lacks a n arguable basis in law or in fact. De La Vega v . Taco Cabana , Inc. , 974 S.W .2d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). In deter mining whe ther a

n app eal is fr ivolous, the trial judge may consider whether

the appe llant has prese nted a substantial question for a

ppellate r eview. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 1 3. 00 3( b) (V e rn on

20 02 ); T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d)( 3) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). L .S.M. asserts the trial cour t a bused its discr etion in f

inding an appe al of the f

ollowing issues raised in he r statement of

appellate points would be frivolous: (1) the trial court’ s denial of he r rig ht to a fa ir jury

trial bec ause the fathe r of two of the c hildren, who a g ree d with the appointment of the Depa rtment as m anag ing conservator, was allowed to participate i n jury selec tion which disallowed L .S.M. more strikes; (2) t h e s ufficie ncy of the e vidence to support the jury ’s finding that appointment of L .S.M. as manag ing con s ervator would not be in the best intere st of the childre n beca use the a ppointment would significa ntly i m p air the children’s phy sical hea lth or emotional development; and ( 3) the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to name he r as a possessory

conser vator in its order.04
- 08
- 00 34 0- CV

2 ... This issue does not even a ppear to have be en ver

bally prese nted to the trial cour t at the sec tion 263.405(d) hea ring , and the only

sentenc e in L .S.M.’s brief pe rtaining to the issue states, “The Appellant fur ther c ontend[s] that she wa s denied the r ight to a f air trial be cause the trial court a llowed Respondent [father ] t o participate in jury selec tion and the trial and thus confuse d the jury

and interf

ere d with Appellant’s rig ht to a fair tr ial.”

- 3- Wit h reg ard to th e d e n ia l o f a f a ir tr ia l, th e D e p artm e n t n o te d in it s tr ia l b r ie f

th a t t h e ju ry strikes wer e divided betwe en the De partment a nd the childre n’s attorne y ad litem, a

nd no objection
was made with re g ard to the numbe r of jury strikes. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1 (requiringobjection to p re se rv e e rr or ). I n a dd iti on to t he po te nti a l pr ob le m w ithe rr or preserva tio n, L .S. M. fa ile d to
e xpla in i n h e r b ri e f h owthe mann e r i n w hic h the jur y str ike s w e re div ide d r e su lte d in a mate ri a lly
un fa ir tr ia l. 2 Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn , 592 S.W .2d 914, 921 (Tex. 1979) (re laxi ng traditional “har mless error ” rule but requiringcomplaining party to show that trial wa s materia lly unfair)
. Acc ording ly , the trial cou rt did not err in findingthat L .S.M.’s assertion of this issue on appea l
wo uld be fr ivo lou s. Wit h reg ard to the sufficie ncy of the e vidence , L .S.M. testified at trial that she had a dmitted herse lf to a psy chiatric fac ility on sever al occ asions and had ove rdosed on s ev er al occa sions requiringhospitaliz ation. L .S.M. admitt ed t h at she ha d failed to c omply with the Depa

rtment’s
se rv ic e pla

n a nd that sh e us e d c on tr oll e d s ub stan ces. L .S .M . te sti fi e d a s to he r i ns ta bil ity in obtaining a

nd maintaining e mploy

ment and appr opriate housing . L .S.M.’s therapist also test i fied that L .S.M. was not rea dy to have he r childre n returne d to he r. Pictures of the home from whic h the children w ere remove d wer e introduce d into evidence depicting t h e d eplora ble conditions and
un su ita bil ity of the ho me e nv ir on me nt. Ros ari o Ra mos , a c a se wo rk e r, te sti fi e d th a t L .S. M. c ou ld
no t me e t th e c hil dr e n’ s n e e ds and that th e c hil dr e n w ou ld f a c e e mot ion a l and ph y si c a l da ng e rs if returne d to L .S.M. I n view of this e vidence , the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that04
- 08
- 00 34 0- CV

3 ... I n our orig inal opinion, we noted that the r ecor d ref lected that L .S.M. was beingg iven visitation wit h her c hildren pursua nt to the Depar

tment’s curr ent servic e plan.

- 4- an appe llate point based on the suf ficienc y of the e vidence would be fr ivolous. The fina l issue raised in L .S.M.’s statement of appe llate points was that the trial c ourt was
re qu ir e d to a

pp oint he r a s a

po sse sso ry

c on se rv a tor

purs ua nt t o s e c tio n 1 53 .1 91 of the Te xas F a mil y Code. I n our orig inal opinion, we noted that the tria l court did not abuse its discretion in findi ng that
ana p p e a l o nth is b a s is a ls o w o u ld b e f r iv o lo u s g iv e nth e e v id e n c e p r e v io u s ly s u mm ar iz ed. 3 See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . 153.191 (Ve rnon 2002) (cour t not require d to a

ppoint pa rent a s possessory conser vator if appointment not in best interest of the c hild and pare ntal possession would endang er the phy sical and e motional welfar e of the child). I n a dd iti on

to f ili nga mot ion fo r r e he ari ngre qu e sti ng

that w e re c on sid e r thi s iss ue , L .S. M. also filed the portion of the repor ter’s rec ord containing the trial judge ’s discussion of the judg ment he intended to e nter ba sed on the jury ’s verdic t. This portion of the re porter’ s rec ord demonstrates the problems that ar ise when the trial judg e who presides over the t rial does not also preside ove r the section 263.405(d) hear ing to determine whe ther a n appea l of issues arisingfrom that trial or r elating to the judgme nt e ntere d as a result of that trial would be frivolous. Fr om the discussion by the trial judge who presided over the trial reg ardingthe judg ment to be enter ed, it is readily appar ent that the trial judg e intended to a

ppoint L.S
. M
. as a possessory conser vator. In fac t, the trial judg e wa s advocating a

n immediate incre ase in L .S.M.’s visit ation rig hts. I nitially , the trial judg e told L .S.M., “I think y ou’ve ma de a tr emendous am o u n t o f prog ress. You’ re a differ ent per son today

than the person I first met when a ll of this got started.” The trial judg e fur ther noted, “ So, let’s keep wor king towards what, Ithink, the ultim ate g oal i s of getting these children back with their mom.” The tria l judge finally asser

ted, “I want the c hildren and the mother to have as much time as possible. ... I ’d04
- 08
- 00 34 0- CV

- 5- l i k e t o s e e w h a tw e c and o a b o u tg e t t i n g [ L. S
. M
. ] m o r e v i s i t a t i o nr i g h tn o w , t o o . ” A c c o r d i n g l y, based on the rec ord pre sented, the trial court abused i ts discretion in deter mining that an a

ppeal of the iss ue re latin g to t

he fa ilure to a

pp oint L .S. M. a s a

po sse sso ry

c on se rv a tor

wo uld be fr ivo lou s. I NDI GE NCY We also review

the trial cour

t’s indige nce finding under an abuse of discretion standard. In
re Sm ith , 7 0 S. W.3 d 1 67 , 1 68 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 01 , n o p e t.). Ev en absen t a c on te st, section 263.405 require s the trial court to de termine whether L .S.M.’s c laim of indige nce should be sustained. SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d),( e) ( Ver non Supp. 2008). At the hea ring on May 27 , 2 00 8, L .S. M. te sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s e mpl oy e d d ur ingthe tr ia l but de c ide d to take mate rn ity leave beg inning on Ma

y 8, 2008. Whil e employ ed, L .S.M. was working almost 40 hours eve ry wee k
an d m a k i n g $ 8
. 0 0 p e r

h o ur . L. S
. M
. ’ s e x p e c t e d d e l i v e r y d a t e w a s n o tu n t i l A u g u s t1 6 , 2 0 0 8
. In response to whether a medical rea son prec luded her from wor king, L .S.M. admitt ed that she did not have a doctor’s e x cuse. Aparty ’s claim of indig ence will f ail if that party

is voluntarily

unemploy ed. In re A.M .R. , No. 04-02-00333- CV, 2002 WL 31830482, at *1 (Te x . App.—San Antonio Dec . 18, 20 02 , n o p e t.) (m e m. o p. ); In reSm ith , 70 S.W .3d at 169. In view of the evidenc e pre sented, the tria l
c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

fi nd ingthat L .S. M. is n ot i nd ig e nt. C ONCL US I ON The portion of the trial court’ s order finding that an appe al of the issue r elatingto the trial
c ourt ’s fa ilure to a

pp oint L .S. M. a s a

po sse sso ry c on se rv a tor is re ve rs e d, and L .S. M. is e nti tle d to proce ed with a br ief on the me rits of that issue. The r emainder of the trial c ourt’s orde r is aff irmed.
Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice