Opinion filed July 23 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 02 93 -CV

____ ____ IN TH E INT ERE ST OF S. N. , ACH ILD

On App eal from the 326th Distric t Court

Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 6436-C X
O P I N I O N This is an acc eler ated a

ppeal f rom the trial cour

t’s order terminating appellant’ s pare ntal ri g hts . We a ff

ir m. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Appellant is the father of S.N. T.M. is the mother of S.M. and S.N. T.M. and appe llant lived toge ther with S.M. and S.N. I n Marc h 2007, S.M. and S.N. were remove d from the h o me. The Te xas D e pa

rtme nt o f F a mil y

a nd Pr ote c tiv e Se rv ic e s r e c e ive d in fo rm a tio n th a t a pp e lla nt had hit S.M. and left bruises on he r ar ms and thighs. The De p ar t m en t als o lear ned that the pa

rents used drug s in the home and that a ppellant was a

busive to T.M. The De partment filed a Petition for Pr ote c tio n o f a

Chi ld, fo r C on se rv a tor sh ip, and fo r T e rm inatio n in

Sui t A ff e c tin g Pare nt- Chi ld Relationship. Appellant was subseque ntly char g ed with injury

to a child for hitting S.M. Appellant pleade d no contest to the cha rg e and w as sentenc ed to fiftee n y ear s confineme nt. At the time of the t e r m i n a t i o nh e ar i n g , a

p p e l l an t w a s i n p r i s o n an d w o u l d b e e l i g i b l e f o r p ar o l e i nF e b r

u ar y 2 0 0 9

. In2

its petiti on, the Depa

rtment alleg ed five acts or omissions as the basis for terminating appella n t’s pare ntal rig hts to S .N. I t alleg ed that he: 13.1 knowing ly

place d or knowing ly allowed the child to rema in in conditions or surrounding s which enda n ger t h e phy sical or e motional well-being of the child;
13.2 eng ag ed in c onduct or knowing ly place d the child with persons who e ng ag ed in conduct which e ndang ers the phy sical or e motional well-being of the c hild;
13 .3 kn ow ing ly

e ng a g e d in

c ri min a l c on du c t th a t ha s r e su lte d in the pa re nt’ s: (i) convic tion of an off

ense; a nd (i i) c on fi nem ent o r i mpr iso nme nt a nd ina bil ity to c are fo r t

he c hil d for not less than two y ear s from the date of filing of the pe tition;
13.4 been c onvicted or has be en plac ed on community supervision, including de fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , fo r be ing cri min a lly responsible for

the death or serious injury of a c hild under the fol l o wi ng sections o f t he Penal Code or adjudicate d under Title 3 f or conduc t that cause d the death or serious injury of a c hild and that would const i t u te a vio la tio n o f o ne of

the fo llo wi ngPe na l Co de se c tio ns : § 2 2. 04 (i nju

ry to a c hil d, e lde rl y

ind ivi du a l, o r d isa

ble d in div idu a l)
13 .5 fa ile d to c omp ly

wi th t he pr ov isi on s o f a

c ourt ord e r t

hat sp e c if

ic a lly established the a ctions nece ssary for the f ather to obtain the ret u rn o f t he child wh o [ h as] been in the pe rmane nt or temporar y manag ing conser vatorship of the D epar

tment of Fa

mily and Protective Service s for not less than nine months as a r esult of the child’s r emoval fr om the pare nt under Chapter 262 f

or the a buse or ne g lect of the child.
The trial c ourt rec eived evidenc e perta ining to the termination at a bench trial. At the conc lusion of the tr ial, th e court

fo un d th a t a

pp e lla nt h a d e ng a g e d in

c ri min a l c on du c t th a t r e su lte d in his confine ment and inability to car e for

his child for not less than two y ea rs an d t h at he had been

c on vic te d o f i nju

ry to a c hil d. Th e tr ia l c ourt

a lso fo un d th a t te rm inatio n wa s in S.N .’ s b e st i nte re st. The wr itten termination order was filed on October 6, 2008. On Octobe r 14, 2008, appe llant filed a notice of

appea l and stateme nt of points on which he intended to a ppeal. He identified the fo llo wi ngc omp la int s in

his state me nt o f p oin ts o n a pp e a l: 1. Te xas F a mil y

Cod e 26 3. 40 5( b) is un c on sti tut ion a l and vio la te s [a pp e lla nt’ s] rig h ts to d

u e p r o c e s s an d e qu a l p r o te c ti o n u n d e r A rti c le [I ], § 12 of the3 Constit ution of the State of Te x as and the 5 and 14 Amendments to the th th United States Constit ution.
2. Te xas F a mil y Cod e 26 3. 40 5( i) is un c on sti tut ion a l and vio la te s [a

pp e lla nt’ s] rig hts to due proce ss and equa l p ro t ec t i on under A rticle [I ], § 12 of the Constit ution of the State of Te x as and the 5 and 14 Amendments to the th th United States Constit ution.
3. The e vidence adduce d at trial (or any prior hea ri n g) wa s both leg ally

and fac tually insufficient to establ i s h b y clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the termination of [appellant’s] pare nt al rights was in the be st interest of the children a s set forth in par ag raph 7.1 of the Ter mination Order.
4. The e vidence adduce d at trial (or any prior hea ring ) was both leg ally

and fac tually insufficient to establish by clear and convinc ing e vidence that [appellant] has been convicted for beingcriminally responsible for

the injury of a c hild c onstitut ing a violation of § 22.04 of the Te x as Penal Code a s set forth in par ag raph 7.2.1 of the termination orde r. 5. The e vidence adduce d at trial (or any prior hea ring ) wa s both leg ally

and fac tually insufficient to establish by cl ear and c onvincingevidenc e [appellant] knowingly

eng ag ed in c ri m inal conduct that r esulted in the c on vic tio n o f a

n o ff e ns e and c on fi ne ment or

imp ri so nme nt a

nd ina bil ity to car e for the child for not less than two y ear s from the date of filing the petition as set forth in par ag raph 7.2.2 of the termination orde r. The trial c ourt held a he aringto determine if a ny of appellant’ s points were f rivolous and found that Poi nts On e and Tw o we re no t fr ivo lou s and that Poi nts Th re e , F our, and F ive we re fri vo lou s. Appellant does not c halleng e this finding. Issues on Appe al Ap pe lla nt rai ses thre e iss ue s o n a pp e a l. F ir st, he argue s th a t T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 2 63 .4 05 (b) (Vern on 20 08 ) i s u nco ns ti tu ti on al b ecaus e it dep ri ves in di gent p aren ts th eir du e proce ss ri g hts

. Nex t, a

pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN . § 26 3. 40 5( i) (V e rn on 20 08 ) i s unconstitutional because it violates the doctrine of separ ation of powe rs. Fina lly , he asse rts that Se c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (i ) i s unc on sti tut ion a l be c a us e it d e pr ive s i n d i g e nt

p a r e nts of the ir du e pr oc e ss r ig hts

. Standard of Review A par ty may challeng e a statute as be i n g u n co nstitut ional on its face or as a pplied to that party

. T e x
. W o r k e r s ’ C o m p
. C o mm ’n v . G ar c ia , 893 S.W. 2d 50 4, 51 8 n .1 6 ( Te x. 19 95 ); City of4

Corpus Chr isti v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex

. , 51 S.W .3d 231, 240-41 (Te x . 2 0 0 1 ). I t i s unclea r whether appellant is attac king the constitutionalit y of T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 2 6 3.405 (Ve rnon 2008) on its fac e or a s it is applied to him; ther efor e, we will discuss both a facia l challeng e and a n
a s- a pp lie d c ha lle ng e . T o s us ta in a fa c ia l c ha lle ng e , the pa

rt y mus t sh ow that the statut e , by its te rm s, alway s operates unconstitutionally

. Ga rc ia , 893 S.W .2d at 518. To sustain an as- applied cha lleng e, the par ty must show that the statute is unc onstitut ional when applied to that par ticular pe rson or set of fa cts. Id . I n deter

minin g i f d u e p roce ss is accor ded a pa rent in a te rmination proce eding we consider the following : (1) the private intere st affe cted by the proc eedingor off

icial ac tion; (2) the counter vailing g overnme ntal interest supporting the use of the challeng ed proc eeding ; and (3) the risk of an e rrone ous deprivation of that private intere st due to the proce d u re s used. Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). Fa c ial Cha lle ng e to S

e c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (

b) an d ( i) A par ent appe aling the termination of his or her pare ntal rig hts has a rig ht to a meaning ful appea l. In re M

.S. , 115 S.W .3d 534 (Tex. 2003). The leg islature has a dopted a pr ocess to appe al termination order s. That proc es s i n cl u d es the a ppointment of counsel for indige nt pare nts. See Section 263.405(e)

. I ncluded in that proc ess ar e ce rtain proc edura l require ments and limitations not present in ordina

ry civil a ppeals. For example, a statement of points on which a par ty intends to appea l must be prese nted to the trial court within f ifteen da y s after the sig ning of

the termination

or de r. Se c tio n 26 3. 40 5( b)

. An a pp e llate c ourt

may no t c on sid e r a

ny iss ue that w a s n ot s pe c if

ic a lly pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt in a tim e ly fi le d s ta te me nt o f poi nts on wh ic h th e pa rt y int e nd s to a

pp e a l. Section 263.405(i) (“ a cla im that a judicial decision is contra ry to the evidenc e or that the evidenc e is f a c tua lly or le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt” do e s n ot p re se rv e an is su e fo r ap pe a l)

. A s ta te me nt o f p oin ts i s specific enoug h when it allows the trial c ourt to corr ect a ny err oneous finding s on the cha ll en g ed g rounds. Ad

am s v . Te

x . D e p’ t of Fa mi ly & Pr ote c tiv e Se rv s. , 2 3 6 S. W. 3 d

2 7 1 , 2 7 8 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; In re A.J.H

. , 2 05 S.W. 3d

79 , 8 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 2006, no pet.). I f an ind ig e nt pare nt time ly fi le s a sta te me nt of po int s on whi c h the pa re nt i nte nd s to a

pp e a l, the tr i a l c o u rt m u s t h o l d a h e ar i n g w i t h i n t h i rt y d ay s a f t e r t h e t e r

m i n a t i o n o r d e r i s s i g ne d to deter mine (1 ) whe ther a

new tria l should be g rante d, (2) whe ther the pa rent’s c laim of indige nceT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5 pro vides: 1 When by

these rule or by

a notice g iven thereund er or b y o rder of c ou rt an act is required or allowe d to be done at

or w ithi n a s pec if

ie d ti m e, the c ourt f

or c aus e show

n m ay , at a

ny ti m e in i ts dis cr et ion ( a) w ith or w ithout m otion or not ic e, orde r t

he per iod e nla

rg ed if a pplic at ion t

her ef ore is m ade bef

ore the e xpira

tion of the perio d ori ginally

prescribed or as ex tend ed by a prev iou s order; or (b ) upo n m otio n perm it the act to be don e a f ter the e xpira tion of the s pec if

ie d pe riod w

her e g ood c aus e is s how

n f or t he f ai lure to ac t. 5 s h o u l d b e s u s t a i n e d , an d ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s a s p r o v i d e d

b y T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE ANN . § 13.003 (Ve rnon 2002). Sec tion 263.405(d). I f the t ri al cour t determines that the

a pp e a l is fri volou s, the ind ig e nt p are nt i s n ot e nti tle d to ob ta in a fr e e re c or d o n a

pp e a l. Section 13.003(a)

. T h e l e g i s l a tu r e h a s m an d a t e d t h e s e p r o c e d

u r e s i n an e f

f o rt t o d e c r e a s e p o s t

j u d g m e n td e l a ys i n t ermination ca ses when the children a re unde r the De partment’s c are
. In re M. N. , 2 6 2 S.W .3d 79 9, 80 3 ( Te x. 20 08 ). Ho we ve r, the su pr e me c ourt ha s sta te d th a t th e le g isl a tiv e int e nt w a s n ot t o unfairly or unre asonably

prec lude par ents from a

ppealingfinal orde rs and that the le g is la tu r e a d opted the provisions of Section 263.405 in light of the civil and appe llate rules of proce dure. Id

. Con se qu e ntl y , p are nts may a sk fo r a n e xten sio n of t ime to f

ile the state me nt o f p oin ts p ur su a nt t o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. In re M. N. , 26 2 S.W. 3d a t 80 3. F ur the r, if the tr ia l c ourt

fi nd s th a t th e a

pp e a l is 1 frivolous , the indig ent par ent may appea l this determination and is e ntitled to obtain a fr ee r ecor d of that hea

ring for a ppeal pur poses. Section 263.405(g ). In l i g h to f t h e s e p r o c e d

u r a l s a f e g u a r d s , a p p e l l an th a s n o td e m o n s t r a t e d h o w t h e s t a tu t e a l w a ys
cause s an er

roneous deprivation of pare ntal rig hts. I f counse l needs a repor ter’s r ecor d to prepa

re a stateme nt of points, the trial court ha s the authority to ext end the Sec tion 263.405(b) fiftee n-day deadline. T he statute, ther efor e, does not de prive an i n d i gen t p are nt the ability to prosecute a meaning ful appe al. Section 263.405(b) a nd (i) is not unconstitutional on it s fac e. As -A pp lie d Ch all e ng e to S

e c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (

b) an d ( i) I n this case, the t ri al court held three he aring s in which appe llant did not have appointed counsel. B ut, the trial court a ppointed appellant a

n attorney

over e ight months pri o r t o the final he ari ngon

the iss ue of

te rm inat io n of hi s rig hts . App e lla nt’ s a pp oin te d c ouns e l r e ma ine d h is

a tto rn e y thr ou g ho ut t

he pe ri od imm e diate ly

fo llo wi ngthe e ntr

y of te rm inatio n, and

he re ma ins his attorney on appea l. A

ppellant filed a timely statement of points, and the trial cour t held a hea

ring to determine if

a p p e ll an t’ s s tate me n t o f

p o in ts o nth a t h e in te n d e d to a p p e a l c o n ta in e d

p o in ts th at6

wer e fr ivolous. The trial court fo u nd that appellant’ s leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

points were frivolous. Appellant ar g ues that his due proc ess rig hts were violated bec ause he was re quired to file a statement of points t h at he intende d to appea l before the pre paration of the repor ter’s r ecor d. Appellant ar g ues that, without a complete repor ter’s r ecor d, he was unable to r aise err ors that might have oc curr ed prior to his attorne y ’s appointment. We disag ree
. C o u n s el did not ask for a n extension o f time to file the statement of points in order to obtain the repor

ter’s r ecor d. Fur

ther, counsel ha d time to discuss the points p re s ented at the previous hea ring s with appellant, T.M.’s attorney , and the children’ s attorney ad li tem. Counsel also had ac cess to the c lerk’s f ile to review the petition, the service plan, and the pr og ress re ports that descr ibed the eve nts leading up to the

remova l of the childre n and the decision to pr ocee d with te rmination. Moreove r, appellant does not identify any alleg ed er

rors that oc curr ed prior to the a ppointment of his counsel t h at he was p re v en t edfr o m ra i s i n g. Appellant also a

rg ues that his due proc ess rig hts were violated bec ause he was pre vented from ra ising a leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy of t he evidence challeng e. Appellant did not appea l the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing that his le g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y po int s w e re fr ivo lou s. F ur the r, on a pp e a l, appellant attacks the trial court’s deter mination that he failed to c omply with the family service plan. Th e tria l c ourt

did no t te rm inate his pa

re nta l r ig hts ba se d o n h is f a ilure to c omp ly

wi th t he fa mil y
se rv ic e pla

n. Th e tr ia l c ourt

fo un d b y c le ar a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e that a pp e lla nt h a d e ng a g e d in criminal conduc t that resulted in his confineme nt and inability to car e for

his child for not less than tw o y e ars and

tha t he ha d b e e n c on vi cte d of in jur y to a c hil d. Ap pe lla

nt d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the se finding s on appea l. Consequently , he has not prese nted a valid challeng e to t he suff iciency of the evidenc e for

the trial cour

t’s termination order. Be ca u s e appellant did not ava il hims elf of the proce dura l safeguards in the statute a nd did not identify

any meritorious claims, we hold that Se c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (b) and (i) do no t op e rate to v iol a te a pp e lla nt’ s d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts . We ov e rr ule appellant’ s first and third issues.

Se c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (

i) Vi ola te s S e pa ra tio n o

f P owe rs Appellant next arg ues t h at S ection 263.405(i) is unc onstitut ional beca use it violates the separ ation of powe rs doctrine as set for th in A rt i cle I I , section 1 of the T exas Const itution.7

Appellant ar g ues that Section 263.405(i) pr events him from raising a leg al and f actua l sufficienc y of th e e v id e n c e c h a ll e n g e
. B e c a u s e a p p e ll an t d id n o t li s t th is is s u e in h is s tate me n t of points on which he intends to a

ppeal, he has wa ived this issu e on appea l. Furthe rmore, a s stated above , a pp e lla nt h a s n ot p re se nte d a

va lid c ha lle ng e to t

he su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e th at th e statut e preve nted hi m from presenting and precluded this court from considering

. We overrule appellant’ s second issue on a

ppeal. Conclusion We affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t.

RI CK STRANGE

JUSTI CE

J uly 23, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., McCall, J ., and Strang e, J.