1 ... T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n D
. G a b rie l is the p re sid ing ju d g e o f t h e 1 3 1 st J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt o f B e x a r C o u n ty.

H owever , t he order of t er mi nat i on, wh i ch i s t he s ubj ect of t he appeal , was s i gn ed by T he H onorabl e Char l es M o n te m a yo r, A sso c ia te J u d g e .

2 ... T h e trial c o u rt a lso ter m ina te d the p a re n t-ch ild rel at io n sh ip b e tw e e n the two fath e rs a n d the ir re sp e c tive c h ild o r c h ild re n . N e ithe r fa the r h a s a p p e a le d the ter m ina tio n . i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 78 7- CV IN THE INT EREST OF I.J.A. , P.J .A., and J.J .A., Children, Fr om the 131st J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PA-02405 Honora ble Charles Montemayor, Associate J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 16, 2010 AFF I RMED This is an acc eler ated a

ppeal f rom the trial cour

t’s order t erminatingRox anne Ca sillas’s pare ntal rig hts to her c hildren, I .J .A., P.J .A., and J.J .A. 2 In three issues, Casillas argues termination was improper

beca use the e vidence is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to suppor t the three statutory g rounds upon which the tr ial court ba sed the ter mination. W e af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

3 ... W e c o nstrue C asil l as’s b rief i ng t o i nc l ud e a ch all en ge t o t he t rial co urt’ s f i nd i ng t ha t he r ap p ea l i s f rivo l o us. Se e I n r e K. L. A. C. , N o. 14- 08- 00960- CV , 2010 W L 184152, at * 2 n . 5 ( T ex . App.

— H ou s t on [ 14t h D i s t . ] J an . 21, 2010, n o p e t.).

- 2- P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND Followi n g a benc h trial, the trial cour t terminated the pa

rent-c hild relationship betwee n Casillas a nd her children, finding the evidenc e supported thr ee of the six teen statutory

g rounds for termination alleg ed by

the Texas Depa

rtment of F amily

and Protective Service s (“the Depa rtment”),
an d th a t te r

mi n a ti o n w a s in th e b e s t inte r e s t o f th e c h ildren. SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 1 61 .0 01 (1 ), (2 ) ( Ve rn on 20 09 ). Spe c if

ic a lly , th e tr ia l c ourt

fo un d Ca sil la s: (1) knowing ly

place d or knowing ly

allowed the c hild to remain in condi tions or s u rr o u n d i n gs wh i ch en d an ger edth ei r p h y s i ca l o r e m o t i o n al we l l -b ei n g; (2) e ng ag ed in conduct or knowing ly place d the childre n with persons who e ng ag ed in conduct that enda

ng ere d their phy sical or e motional well-being ; and (3) f ailed to comply

with provisions of a cour t order that es t ablished the a ctions nece ssary to obtain return of t h e ch i l d ren who had bee n in the perma nent or temporar y manag ing c o n s e r

vatorship of the D epar

tment for not less than nine months a s a re su lt o f t

he ir re mov a l be c a

us e of a bu se or ne g le c t. See id. § 161.001(1)( D), (E), (O). Casillas timely filed an a ffidavit of indig ence , a motion for new trial, and a

statement of a

ppellate points. Se e id . § 263.405 (b), (e)
. After a hear ing, the trial court fo un d Ca sil la s in dig e nt, de nie d he r mot ion fo r ne w tri a l, an d fou nd he r s tate me nt o f a

pp e llate po int s frivolous. See id. § 263.405(d). Casillas per fec ted an a ppeal. A N A L Y SIS Casillas’s appellate is s u es are subjec t to section 263.405(g ) of the T exas Family Code beca use the trial c ourt found her appea l frivolous. See id. § 263 .4 05 (g ). Ac c or din g ly , w e mus t f ir st
re vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s fr ivo lou sn e ss f ind ingbe fo re pr oc e e din g to t he me ri ts o f t

he a pp e a l. 304
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 3- Stan dard of Revie w Parenta l rig hts can be terminated only upon proof by clea

r and convincing evidenc e that (1) the par ent has c ommitt ed an a ct prohibited by section 161.001(1) of the Te x as F amily Code, and (2) terminati o n i s i n t h e b est interest of the children. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 16 1. 00 1( 1) , ( 2) ; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W .3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2009). I f a trial court de termines the pa rent ha s committed multipl e ac ts prohibited by section 161.001(1) of the F amily Code, the re v i ew i n g court need not deter mine whether eac h g round enjoy s the requisite amount of evide ntiary support. In re A.V. , 113 S.W. 3d 35 5, 36 2 (T e x. 20 03 ); In re N.S.G. , 235 S.W .3d 358, 363 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). Rather , the reviewing court may aff irm the termination if there is clear and convinc ing evidenc e supportingthe exist ence of one alleg ed statutory violation, assuming the State a lso proved termination was in the be st interest of the c hild. Id. ; se e als o T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1), (2). Clea r and convincing evidenc e is “‘pr oof t hat wil l produce in the mind of the trier of fa ct a f irm belief or conviction as to the truth of the alleg ations sought to be e stablished.’” J.O.A. , 283 S.W .3d at 3 4 4 (q u o t i n g T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 1 01 .0 07 (V e rn on 20 08 )) ; In reJ

.F .C. , 96 S.W .3d 256, 264 (Tex. 2002). When a par ent appe als from a n order terminat i ng his or her pa renta l rig hts, and that te rm inatio n w a s p ur su ant to ch a pte r 2 63 , s ub c ha

pte r E of the Te xas F amil y

Cod e , th e tr ia l c ourt

is
re qu ir e d to de te rm ine wh e the r “ the a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s a s p ro vided by S e c tio n 1 3. 00 3( b) , Ci vil Practice and Remedie s Code.” T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 26 3. 40 5( d) (3 ); see I n re M.N.V. , 216 S.W. 3d 83 3, 83 4 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , no pe t.) . Wh e n a n a pp e a l ha s n o a

rgua ble ba sis in either lawor fa ct, it is frivolous. M.N.V. , 2 1 6 S
. W
. 3 d at 8 3 4 (c i t i n g De La Ve

ga v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 974 S.W .2d 152, 154 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)). Section 13.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that in de termining whether an appea l is frivolous, the04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 4- tr ia l c ourt “ may c on sid e r wh e the r the a pp e lla nt ha s pr e se nte d a su

bs tanti a l qu e sti on fo r appel late revie w.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13 .0 03 (b ) ( Ve rn on 20 02 ); see M

.N.V. , 216 S.W .3d at 834-35. We r eview the trial court’s deter mination that an appea l is frivolous under an a buse of discretion standa

rd. M.N.V. , 2 1 6 S
. W
. 3 d at 8 3 4 (c i t i n g I

n r e W. B

. W. , 2 S. W. 3 d

4 2 1 , 4 2 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; In re M .R.J.M. , 1 93 S.W. 3d

67 0, 67 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2006, no pet.)). “ A trial cour t abuses its discretion if it acts w i t h o u t ref ere nce to guiding r

ules or principles (le g al issues), or acts arbitra rily or unre asonably

(fa ctual issues).” Gardner v. G ardner , 22 9 S. W.3 d 7 47 , 751 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n Ant on io 200 7, no pe t.) ; In reM. W .T. , 12 S.W .3d 598, 602 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) . When the proper standard of

revie w is abuse of discretion, cha lleng es to the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vi d en ce ar e not i ndepende nt g ro un ds of

e rr or ; r a the r, the y

are sim ply fa c tor s in

de te rmin in g wh ether

the tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion. Gardner , 2 29 S.W. 3d a t 75 1; London v. London , 192 S.W .3d 6, 14 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h D ist .] 20 05 , pe t. d e nie d) . T he re fo re , a n a pp e llate c ourt

mus t e ng a g e in a

tw o- pr on g ana ly sis
and de te rm ine “ (1) wh e the r t he tr ia l c ourt

ha d s uf fi c ie nt i nf or matio n u po n w hic h to e xer c ise its discretion, and ( 2) whe ther the tria l court er red in its appli cation of discr etion.” Gardner , 229 S.W. 3d a t 75 1; Sotelo v. Gonzales , 170 S.W .3d 783, 787 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). I n undertaking this ana ly sis, the appellate c ourt uses the tra ditional standards of revie w for leg al and f

actua l sufficienc y . Gardner , 229 S.W .3d at 751. W hen the leg al suffic iency of the evidenc e is cha lleng ed in a case wher e the burden of proof is by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the revie wing court is re quired to l ook at all of the e vidence in the light most favor able to the f inding in question to determine “whether a re asonable t ri er of fac t could have f ormed a firm belief

or conviction that its finding wa s true.” J.F .C. , 96 S.W .3d at 266. I f the c ourt deter mines no04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 5- re a so na ble fa c t f ind er cou ld have fo rm e d s uc h a be lie f, it mus t c on c lud e the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly insufficient. Id. When the factual sufficiency of t he evidence is challeng ed in a clear and convinc ing
case , the re viewingcourt must look at all of the e vidence , and “[i]f, in the light of the entire rec ord, the dis pute d e vid e nc e tha t a re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r co uld no t ha

ve c re dit e d in

fa vo r o f t he fi nd ingis so signific ant that a f

actf inder could not rea sonably have f ormed a firm belief

or convic tion, then the evidenc e is fac tually

insufficient.” Id. We mu s t t

h e r e f o r e d e te r mi n e , c o n s id e r in g th e s ta n d ar d s o f r e v ie w f o r le g a l a n d fac tual
su ff ic ie nc y in t he con tex t of c le ar a

nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e , w he the r t he tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion in finding Casillas ’s ap p eal of at least one of the finding s under se ction 161.001(1) frivolous. See A.V. , 1 13 S.W. 3d a t 36 2; N.S.G. , 235 S.W .3d at 363.

Application One of the statutory

g rounds for te rminat i o n as s er t ed by the Depa rtment and found by

the trial court was that Casillas eng ag ed in conduc t or knowing ly place d the childre n with persons who eng ag ed in conduct that endang ere d their phy sical or emotional well-be ing. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( E). When re viewinga findingunder se ction 161.001(1)( E), the f ocus is on the pare nt’s conduct. In re N.H. , 122 S.W .3d 391, 402 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) . The rele vant inquiry

under se ction 161.001(1)( E) is whethe r the e vidence establishes t he enda ng erme nt of a c hil d’ s p hy sic a l w e ll- be inga s a dir e c t r e su lt o f t

he pa re nt ’s c on du c t, whic h in c lud e s a c ts, omissions , or failure s to a ct. In re J .T.G. , 121 S.W .3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2003, no pet.) (c iting In re R.D. , 955 S.W .2d 364, 368 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied) ). Te rm inatio n und e r s e c tio n 1 61 .001 (1) (O) mus t be ba se d o n mo re tha n a sin g le a c t or

omi ssi on ; it04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 6- must be based on a

voluntary , deliberate, and c onscious course of conduc t by the par ent. J.T.G. , 121 S.W .3d at 125. Howeve r, i t is not necessar y that the par ent’s conduc t be direc ted at the c hild or the child actua lly

suffe r injury
. Id. Al tho ug h Ca sil la s h a d b e e n invo lve d w iththe De pa rtme nt f or se ve ra l y e ars wi th re g ard s to alleg ations of abuse and neg lect, the c hildren we re ne ver removed until 2008. In 2008, Casillas left the childre n with her a

unt, Virg inia J imenez, beca use she wa s incarc erated on an a g g ravated robbe ry charg e. Howe ver, Jimenez soon separate d the childre n, sending eac h child to a diffe rent home. Duringthe sepa

ration, I .J .A. was admitted to a mental hea lth unit, and when re lease d, his care taker ref used to take him bac k. Thi s u l timately came to the attention of the De partment, a nd afte r an investigation, all of the children w er e re m o v ed and plac ed in foster car e. Casillas contends the
e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o sh ow sh e kn ow ing ly pla c e d the c hil dr e n wi th so me on e wh o e ng a g e d in conduct that e ndang ere d the phy sical or e motional well-beingof her children. More spe cifica lly , she argues she ha d no rea son to believe he r aunt would do a ny thing other

than ca re f or the c hildren. Nicole Cure l, the Depa

rtment’s super

visor in this case , testified there was a long history

of Cas i l l as l eavingthe childre n with other people . Fr om J uly 2004 to Dece mber 2004, the c hildren
wer e left with J imenez. Howeve r, i n J anuar y 2005, J imenez g ave the children to Juanita and Alber t Go me z. I n 200 6, I .J.A . re tur ne d to Casi lla s, but th e oth e r t wo c hil dr e n r e ma ine d w iththe Go me zes . I n 2 00 7, a ll thr e e c hil dr e n w e re liv ingwi th C a sil la s, but by Oc tob e r 2 00 8, the y

we re on ce a g a in li v i n g w i t hJi m e n e z . H o w e v e r , Ji m e n e z s u b s e qu e n t l y

s e n tth e c h i l dr e nt o th r e e d i f f e r e n th o me s. Curel testified the “ pattern of children bouncing from plac e to place ” ca uses problems for

children, and ca used beha vioral problems for Casillas’s children. The re w as also testimony that this constant instabilit y harme d the Casillas children e motionally
.04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 7- Contributing to the instability suffe red by

the chi l d re n , was Casil las’s history of inc arc e ratio n. Ad

mitte dly sh e ha s be e n inc arc e rate d on nume ro us oc c a sio ns , and her l a te st incar cer ation lasted more tha n a y ear . Although imprisonment alone is not a basis for ter mination, it is a factor to consider beca use when a par ent is incarc erated, he or she is absent fr om the daily life
o f t h e c h i l d

an d u n ab l e to p ro v i d e sup p o rt , wh i ch n ega t i v el y i mp ac t s a ch i l d ’s em o t i o n al we l l b ei n g. In re M .R.J.M. , 280 S.W .3d 494, 503 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2009, no pet.). Casillas’s deci s ion to leave he r childre n for e x tended pe riods of time, coupled w ith her decision to commit criminal acts re sulting in numerou s i ncar cer ations, cer tainly subjected the children to uncer

tainty and instabilit y . In fac t, Casillas herself a dmitted that her cr iminal behavior neg atively

aff ecte d her c hildren. This ty pe of c onduct endange red he r childre n’s phy sical and emotional well-be ing. See id. L eaving a child over and over ag ain, the child never knowing when or i f t he pa

r e n t w il l r e tu

r n , s u b je c ts th e c h il d

to un c e rta inty

an d in s ta b il it y , w h ic he n d an g e r s the child’s phy sical and e motional well-being
. Id
. Ac c or din g ly , the re is e vid e nc e Ca sil la s e ng a g e d in
a cour se of c onduct that enda ng ere d the phy sical and emotional well-be ing of her c hildren. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( E). Moreove r, Casillas simply ignor es the e videnc e fr o m numerous witnesses r eg ardingher direc t phy sical abuse of her children, which would clea rly constitute evidenc e of a course of conduc t endang ering the children’ s phy sical and emotional well-be ing. Thera pists for all th re e c h i l dren te sti fi e d e xten siv e ly

a bo ut t he se ve re ph y sic a l a

bu se su ffer e d b y

the c hil dr e n at th e ha

nd of the ir mot h e r . A t th e r e le v an t ti me s , P. J. A
. w a s s e v e n an d e igh t- y e ar s - o ld
. P. J. A
. ’ s th e r a p ist testified P.J .A. told her Casillas hit him with a bat. One of P.J .A.’s foster pare nts, who is actually

a re lative, testified P.J .A. was te rrifie d o f returningto his mot her. The foster pa rent testified P.J.A. was04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 8- te rr if ie d o f w ir e ha

ng e rs . Wh e n h e saw h e r u sin g on e to cl e an out a sto pp e d- up sink, he c ra wl e d into
a cor ner of the kitchen a

nd started scre aming , asking her why she wa s g oing to hit him. When she qu e sti on e d him , he tol d he r his mot he r us e d to op e n the wi re ha ng e r a nd hit him wi th i t. H e a lso tol d he r h i s m o t h e r h i t h i m w i t h a b a s e b a l l b a t w h e n h e w a s t o o l o u d
. P
. J. A
. a l s o t o l d h e r C a sil la s h it I .J .A. with the bat. J .J .A.’s ther apist also testified. J .J .A., who was six and seven- y ear s-old during the re levant time periods, told the thera pist she was phy sically abused, specific ally that she wa s spanked on the buttocks and leg s with a belt. S he also told the thera pist that she witnessed her mother hitting he r brothers w ith a baseba ll bat. The thera pist stated J .J .A. i s a “ve ry anxious child,” who ha s been diag nosed with post-traumatic stre ss disorder, a s well as adjus t m en t disorder. J.J .A. suffe rs from
sever e and violent nig htmares due to the g reat instabili ty in her life. The Department also prese nted t estimony from I .J .A.’s ther apist. I .J .A., ag e eig ht and nine duri ngthi s time pe ri od , told of a bu se by his mot he r a nd fathe r. He tol d th e the ra

pis t he wi sh e d h is mot he r w ou ld c ha

ng e and sto p h itt inghim . L ike J.J.A. , I .J.A . h a s a lso be e n d ia g no se d w ithpo sttraumatic stre ss disorder, a s well as bipolar d i s order , ADHD, g ender identity disorder, e x pressive
rec eptive langua g e dis order , and low intellige nce. A ccor ding to the the rapist, I .J .A. has e x hibited self-ha rming behavior s, ag g ression, problems in sc hool and with peer s, and g reat difficulty in foster place ment. Mary Duvs, a for ensic intervie wer for B exar County , interviewe d all three children. A ll three children de scribed phy sical abuse . There was phy sical abuse by “Unc le Steve”–a man their mother04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 9- lived with at a ce rtain point in time. All three talked about I .J .A. being phy sically abused w ith a bat by Casillas. J .J .A. said she wa s hit by her mother

and Unc le Steve. Finally , Dr. Richar d Blake, a psycholog ist, evaluated J.J .A. and P.J .A. B oth were diag nosed with post-traumatic stre ss disorder a nd adjustment diso r d e r with mix ed anxiety and depr essed mood. He a lso determined both children had suffe red phy sical abuse and negle ct. P.J .A. t old Dr. B lake he was hit, thrown ag ainst a bedf rame , and witnessed his mother hitting I .J .A. with a bat. J .J .A. re lated that she wa s hit by

her mother , but she did have gre at d i ff i cult y talking a bout it. I n Dr. B lake’ s opinion, phy sical abuse resulted in their c onditions, causing sy mptoms of anx iety , ag itation, frustration, lack of trust, over rea ctions, fea

r, and hy per vig ilance. Thus, in addition to the evidenc e of damag e to the phy sical and e motional well-beingof the children due to Casillas’s decision to leave them with others, there was overwhe lming evide nce of direc t phy si ca l abuse by

Casillas. Casill as does not cha lleng e this evidenc e in her brief. T he evidenc e of direc t phy sical abuse would be sufficient to support the trial cour t’s finding that Casillas eng ag ed in conduc t that endang ere d the children’ s phy sical or emotional well-be ing. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( E). When we conside r the e vidence acc ording t o t h e ap propriate standards of revie w, we
c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt

c ou ld h ave fo rm ed a fir m be lie f o r c on vic tio n th a t Ca sil la s e ng a g e d in
c on du c t or

k n o w i n g l y p l a c e d th e c hil dr e n w ithpe rs on s w ho e ng a g e d in c on du c t th a t e nd ang e re d th e ir phy sical or emotional well-be ing. Se e J .F .C. , 9 6 S. W.3 d at 26 6. Gi ve n th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa ctually sufficie nt to support at least one of the statutory g rounds of ter

mination found by

the04
- 09
- 00 78 7- CV

- 10- tr ia l c ourt , a s we ll a s Ca sil la s’ s fa ilure to c on te st the be st int e re st fi nd ing , we ho ld the tr ia l c ourt did not abuse its discretion in finding Casillas’s appea l frivolous. See M .N.V. , 216 S.W .3d at 834-35. C ONCL US I ON Be cause the trial court did not err in finding Casillas’s appea l frivolous, we a ffirm the tria l court’s te rmination order
.
Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice