1 ... T o p ro te c t t h e p riv a c y o f t h e p a rtie s in th is c a se , w e id e n tif y the c h ild re n b y the ir initials a n d th e p a re n ts b y the ir fi rs t na m e s o n ly. See T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 1 0 9
. 0 0 2 (d) (V ernon 2 0 0 9 ). i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 15 8- CV IN THE INT EREST OF M.A.M . , M .S. , A .R. S., and A. N. S. Fr om the 73rd Judi cial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-PA-01778 Honora ble Charles E. Montema

y or, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 19, 2009 AFF I RMED This is an ac cele rate d appea l conce rning the trial cour t’s termination of Appe llant Phil lip S.’s pa re nta l r ig hts
. 1 Phill ip S. appea ls the trial court’s or der de ny ing his motion for ne w trial and f inding his a pp e llate po int s to be fr ivo lou s. We a ff ir m. B ACKG ROUND On April 6, 2007, the Te x as De partment of Family and Protec tive Service s rec eived a ref err al alleg ing that M.A.M. had been phy sically abused by his g randmother . Family prese rvation ser

vices04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 2- wer e off ere d to the mother, but a fter sever al attempts to locate he r fa iled, a saf ety plan could not be maintained. The ref

ore, on Aug ust 14, 2007, M.A.M., M.S., A.R.S., a nd A.N.S. wer e re moved from their home, a

nd the Depa

rtment was a

ppointed temporar

y manag ing c onservator of the c hildren. The De pa rtme nt t he n b e g an p ro c e e din g s to ob ta in m ana g ingc on se rv a tor sh ip o f t he c hil dr e n a

nd to te rm inate the pa

re nta l r ig hts of

the ir re sp e c tiv e pa

re nts . O n O c tob e r 1 6, 20 07 , a ft e r P hil lip S. admitted pater

nity of M.S., A.R.S., and A .N.S., the trial court made a judicial finding that he is the fathe r of M.S., A.R.S., a

nd A.N.S. The c ourt found that Phillip S . had not re viewed the service plan. I t then approve d and adopte d the per manenc y plans and rec ommendations for the children a s set out in the service plans filed with the cour t, and advised the pare nts that prog ress under t he service plan would be re vi ew ed at al l subsequent hea ring s, “including a re view of w hether the par ties ha[d] acquir ed or le arne d any

specific skills or knowledg e stated in the se rvice plan.” The trial court then notified the parties that the initial per manenc y hear ing was set f or F ebrua ry 12, 2007, and that the
case was set f

or a non- jury merits hear ing on June 19, 2008. The ser vice plan r equire d Phili p S. to (1) complete pa renting classes; (2) pay

court-or dere d child support; (3) subm i t t o drug testing; (4) have a psy cholog ical eva luation and follow any
rec ommendations; (5) build a posi tive support sy stem consisting of appropr iate fr iends, family , and
c omm un ity re so ur c e s; ( 6) re ma in i n c on ta c t w iththe De pa rtme nt; (7 ) ob ta in a

nd ma int a in s ta

ble housing that is safe a

nd appropr iate for

his children; (8) actively participate i n individual counseling and follow a

ny rec ommendations; (9) obtain g ainful, leg al employ ment; ( 10) complete a substance abuse a ssessment and follow a ll rec ommendations, including in-patient if deeme d nece ssary ; (11) attend the Patric ian Movement; and ( 12) par ticipate in re g ular pa

rent/ch i l d v i s its, which were depende nt on submiss ion of random a nd neg ative/clea

n urinaly ses.04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 3- On Octobe r 16, 2007, Philli p S.’s submit ted to a urina ly sis and noted t hat he ha d taken
me tha do ne in t

he pa st thir

ty da y s. Th e ur ina ly sis sh ow e d a po sit ive re su lt f

or c ann a bin oid s. On Janu ary 16 , 2 00 8, the Dep artme nt f ile d a Pe rm ane nc y

Plan a nd Pe rm ane nc y

Pr og re ss Re po rt , w hic h n ote d th at Ph ill ip S . h a d b e g un e ng a g ingin s e rv ic e s. Phi lli p S. had sub mit te d to random drugtesting, ha d attended pa rent/child visits, had obtained leg al employ ment, had begun
rec eiving drug treatme nt, a n d h a d established his own re sidence . The De partment’s pe rmane ncy g oal for the c hildren wa s noted as “f am i l y reunific ation” and the concur rent plan w as noted a s “unre lated/re lated adoption.” On Fe bruar

y 12, 2008, the trial court held a perma nency hear ing at which Phillip S . appea red throug h h is a tt o r

n e y an d a n n o u n c e d

r e a dy . T h e tr ia l c o u rt f

o u n d th a t t h e D e p artm e n t h a d

made

“ r e a s o n a b le e f f o rts , a s id e n ti f

ie d in it s s e r v ic e p la n s an d /o r Pe r ma n e n c y Pr o g r e s s Re p o rts , to f in a li ze the per manenc y plan that is in effe ct for e ach child.” The trial court evaluated the par ties’ compliance wi th t he se rv ic e pla

n a nd fo un d th a t Ph ill ip S . h a d “ no t de mon st ra te d a de qu a te and

a pp ro pr ia te compliance with the service plan.” The trial court se t a per manenc y hear ing f or June 17, 2008, and set the suit for trial on June 19, 2008. Also on Fe bruar

y 12, 2008, Phill ip S. subm itted to an o t h er ur inaly sis. He ag ain noted that he wa s ta kin g me tha do ne . H is uri na ly sis wa s n e g a tiv e fo r o the r d ru g s. On June 11 , 20 08 , the De pa rtme nt f ile d a no the r P e rm ane nc y

Plan a nd Pe rm ane nc y

Pr og re ss Report and state d that Phill ip S. had beg un eng ag ing in service s. He had submitt ed to ra ndom drug te sti ng , att e nd e d pare nt/ c hil d visi ts, ob ta ine d le g a l e mpl oy me nt, wa s e ng a g ingin p are nti ngc la sse s, had built a positive support sy stem, had established his own r esidenc e, an d was re ceiving drug tr e a tme nt, c ouns e lin g , a

nd pa re nt s ha do wi ng . T he Dep artme nt s ta te d th a t th e re ha d b e e n s ome04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 4- prog ress made in alleviating or mitigating the r eason f or the c hildren’s re moval. Thus, the De pa rtme nt s ta te d th a t it s p e rm ane nc y g oa l f or th e chi ld ren wa s f

a mil y re un if ic a tio n a nd that it s
concur rent plan f

or the c hildren wa s unrelate d/relate d adoption. On June 17 , 2 00 8, the tr ia l court he ld a p e rm ane nc y he ari nga t w hic h Ph ill ip S . a pp e a re d in person a nd though his attorney

and announc ed re ady . The trial c ourt found that P hillip S . had demonstrated a dequate and appropriate compliance with the s ervic e plan. The trial cour t then set the next permanenc y

hear ing f or Oc tober 14, 2008, a

nd set trial for O ctober

16, 2008. On Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 08 , th e De pa rtme nt fi le d a Pe rm ane nc y Plan a nd Pe rm ane nc y

Pr og re ss Re po rt , n oti ngtha

t Ph ill ip S . h a d b e g un

e ng a g ingin s e rv ic e s. Phi lli p S. ha d attended pa re nt/ c hil d visits , o b ta in e d

le g a l e mp lo y

me n t, h a d e n g a g e d in p a r e n ti n g c la s s e s , h a d

b u il t a p o s it iv e s u

pport sy stem, had established his own r esidenc e, and ha d rec eived drug treatment, counseling , and par ent shadowing . Howeve r, “[h]e ha[d] stopped drugtesting a s of 8/19/08, l ev el s o f methadone a re not decr easing , and conta ct has cea sed.” The Department t hen li sted its permanenc y g oal as unre lated family adoption. On Octobe r 14, 2008, the trial c ourt held a pe rmane ncy hear ing at which Phillip S . appea red throug h his attorney and announce d not r eady
. The trial court found that Phill ip S. had not demonstrated a dequate and appr opria te c ompliance with the se rvice plan. The tria l court then set tria l for January

26, 2009. On J anuar

y 26, 2009, neither Phillip S . nor his counsel a ppear ed for t ri al. The trial court foun d b y c le ar an d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t te r mi n a ti o n o f th e p ar e n t- c h il d r e lati o n s h ip betwee n Phill ip S. and M.S., A.R.S . and A.N.S. wa s in the children’ s best interest and that Phil lip S. had04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 5- (a) constructively

abandone d the childre n who ha[ d ] been in the perma nent and tempor ary

manag ing conservatorship of the Depa rtment of F amily

and Protec tive Servi ce s or an a uthorized ag en c y f o r n o t le s s th an s ix mo n th s an d : ( 1 ) th e D e p artm e n t or authorized ag e n c y

h a [d ] m a d e rea sonable e ffor ts to return the c hildren to the fathe r; (2) the fathe r ha[d] not r eg ularly visited or maintained sign if ic an t c o n ta c t w it

h th e c h il dr e n ; a

n d ( 3 ) th e f

a th e r h a[d] demonstrated a

n inabi lity

to provide the c hildren with a saf e environment; and (b ) fa ile d to c omp ly wi th the pr ov isi on s of a c ourt or de r that sp e c if ic a lly established the a ctions nece ssary for the fathe r to obta in the return of the children who ha[ d] been in the per manent or te mporary

manag ing conser vatorship of the Depa

rtment of F amily

and Protec tive Service s for not less than nine months as a r esult of the childre n’s re moval fro m th e p ar e n t u n d e r Ch a p te r 2 6 2 f

o r th e a b u s e o r n e g le c t o f the children. The trial court then terminated the pare nt-child relationship between Phillip S . and M.S., A.R.S., and A.N.S. On

F e br ua ry 9, 20 09 , Ph ill ip S . f

ile d a mot ion fo r n e w trial, st ati ng th a t ne ith e r h e no r h is
a tto rn e y ha d a pp e are d at tr ia l du e to a c c ide nt o r m ist a ke : hi s atto rn e y ’s c omp ute r h a d f a ile d to proper ly cale ndar t h e setting . Phill ip S. also arg ued that he ha d a mer itorious defense and that beca use he w as pre pare d to go to t ri al immediately , g ranting a new trial would not harm the Depa rtment. He then listed his appellate points, which included a point arguing that if the trial cour t denied his motion for newtrial, it would be abusing its discretion. At the hear ing on the motion for new tria l, the trial court f ound that Phill ip S. and his attorney had not appe are d at trial bec ause of acc ident or mistake. Howe ver, the trial court e x presse d conce rn that Phill ip S. had not s et up a mer itorious defense beca use he w as still on methadone. The tria l court took the matter unde r adviseme nt a nd on Fe bruar

y 24, 2009, signe d an order denying the motion for new tria l and finding Phill ip S.’s appellate points to be fr ivolous. I n its order, the tria l court found04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 6- that Phill ip S. had m et h i s b u rd en in showing a ccide nt or mistake, but had not met the other two prong s of the Craddock

motion-for-ne w-trial standa rd. Phill ip S. now appeals, a

rg uing that his appeal is not frivolous beca use t he trial c ourt abused its dis c re tio n in

de nyinghis mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. D I S CUS S I ON A trial court may order the termination of the pare nt-child relationship if it f inds by clea r and
c on vin c inge vid e nc e a t le a st o ne statut or y g ro un d f or te rm inatio n a

nd that te rm inatio n is in t

he be st interest of the child. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001 (Ve rnon 2009). When appe al is sought from an order te rminating the par ent-c hild relationship pursuant to chapte r 263, subcha pter E, of the Texas Family

Code, the trial cour

t must also determine whe ther the a ppeal is frivolous as provided b y s ec t i o n 1 3 .003(b) of

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedie s Code. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d). An a

ppeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable ba sis in either law or f act. De La Vega v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 974 S.W .2d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—San Anto n i o 1998, no pet.). In deciding whether an appe al is frivolous, the trial cour t “may consider whether the appellant has pre sented a substantial question for appellate review.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13.003(b) ( Ver non 2002). We revie w the trial c ourt’s dete rmination that the appeal is frivolous under a n abuse of discretion standa

rd. De La Vega , 974 S.W .2d at 154. Her e, Phillip S . argues that an a ppeal c halleng ing the trial court’s failure to gra nt his mot ion for ne w trial is not frivolous. We disagr ee. Pursuant to Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. , 13 4 T ex . 388, 133 S.W .2d 124, 126 (1939), where a defenda

nt had proper noti ce, a default judgme nt should be set aside a nd a new trial g rante d if (1) the failure to a nswer or appea

r at trial was not intentional or the result of consc ious04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 7- indiffer ence but was due to a mistake or ac cident; (2) the defe ndant sets up a mer itorious defense ; and (3) the motion is filed at such time that g ranting a new trial would not result in delay or otherwise injure the plaintiff. In re R.R. , 2 09 S.W. 3d 11 2, 11 4- 15 (T e x. 20 06 ). Th e Te xas S up re me Court has applied the Craddock motion-for-ne w-trial standa rd to pare ntal termination ca ses. See id. The trial c ourt found that Phillip S. had met the f irst prong under Craddock , but that he had failed to mee t the other two prong s. Withre g ard

to t he se c on d p ro ng , a

de fe nd ant “ se ts u

p” a me ri tor iou s d e fe ns e purs ua nt t o Craddock if the movant’s motion and supporting aff idavits set forth fa cts t hat in law constitute a meritorious defe n s e, reg ardle ss of whethe r those fa cts are controve rted. In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d at 116. Her e, the tria l court found by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that t h er e we re two statutory g r o u n d s f o r te r mi n a ti n g Ph il li p S. ’ s p ar e n ta l r ig h ts : ( 1 ) c o n s tr u c ti v e a b an d o n me n t o f

h is c h il dr en while they

wer e in the per

manent or te mporary

manag ing c on s ervatorship of the De partment, see T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)(N) (Ve rnon 2009); and (2) failure to comply with the provisions of a c ourt or de r t hat sp e c if ic a lly e sta bli sh e d th e a c tio ns ne c e ssa ry fo r h im t o o bta in t

he re tur n o f h is children, see id. § 161.001(1)( O). The trial court also found that termination wa s in the children’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). P h i l l i p S
. at t ac h edt o h i s m o t i o n fo r ne w t ri al an af fi d av i ti nwh i ch h e a ff

i rm edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: At one time, I

was a heroin a ddict. Ivoluntarily enter ed treatment for my addiction. My treatment has bee n succe ssful and is continuing. I am currently

a patient of

STOP SA, L L C clinic. My

treatment includes methadone maintenanc e, re g ular doc tor’s a pp oin tme nts , a

nd mon thl y la b te sts . I have be e n c ompl iant

wi th a ll a sp e c ts o f my treatment, and I

am dec rea sing my

methadone dose under a

doctor’s supe rvision. Whil e I wa s un de rg oin g tr e a tme nt, I me t Joy Pe nn e x, wh o wa s a lso a patie nt. We f

e ll in love and got m arr ied, and a re living toge ther ha

ppily . J oy has also bee n underg oing tr e a tme nt f

or he ro in a dd ic tio n, and

sh e is f ull y c omp lia nt w ithhe r t

re a tme nt.04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 8- Joy and Iha ve be c ome me mbe rs of the c on g re g a tio n of No rt hw e st C hurc h o f C hr ist
. Th e c hurc h c omm

un ity ha s w e lc ome d u s into the ir he art s and

its me mbe rs are fu lly supportive of our e ffor

ts to chang e our lif

es t y le and live a

clea n, dece nt life. They have provided us with a financ ial advisor to help us mana g e our f inance s, and have assisted me in finding work. I now have a clea n, dece nt home that has ample r oom fo r my e nti re fa mil y , in c lud ingthe c hil dr e n s ub je c t of thi s su it. Ihave w orked f

or Da rre ll Martin in the home repa ir and improveme nt business, and both J oy and I are now workingfor I HOP at $9.00 per hour. J oy and I both signe d a F amily Service Plan in this case . We have c ompleted all of the tasks assig ned to us except attending pare nting c lasses. The r eason w e have not y e t ta ke n pare nti ng c la sse s is that I un de rs too d J ud g e Mo nte may or to say a t th e la st he ari ng I a tte nd e d tha t, sin c e the De pa rtme nt i nte nd e d to pu t th e c hil dr e n in our h ome for home vis its, we should see how those visits went bef ore de ciding on pare nting classes. J oy and I love the childre n very much and will do any thing in our power t o keep the m with us in a healthy , loving, a nd dece nt home. I n his affidavit, Phi llip S
. admits that he is still taking methadone and is not completely drug fre e. At the motion for ne w trial hea ri n g, t he attorne y

for the c hildren explained that one of the
rea sons trial was re set for January was so Phillip S . could completely stop usi n g d rugs, including methadone. T he attorne y for the c hildren stated, “ I ’m intereste d i n s o meone be ing dr ug fre e and that’s what I ’m in t er es t ed i n . I ’m interested in be ing dr ug fre e, not beingon a leg al substitute for h er o i n . ” T h e t ri al co u rt t h en s t at edt h e f o l l o wi n g: Th a t’ s a lw ay s be e n the sta nd ard of the Court , ri g htl y or wr on g ly
. B ut to be h on est with y ou, I ’ve ha d people do the me thadone tre atment, and g iven the quick de adlines we have set for

th by the leg islature, the one-y ear or even the 18-month people ha ve done it a nd g otten off to zer o. I can – I can think of a handf ul of ca ses wher e we ’ve g one fr om high leve l of methadone to zero within the time frame of the pende ncy

of the ca se. Thus, while Philli p S.’s a ffidavit aff irms that he is c urre ntly underg oing drug treatment, it does not
a ff ir m th a t he ha s b e e n s uc c e ssf ul in completing

drug treatment and bec oming dr ug fre e.04
- 09
- 00 15 8- CV

- 9- Fur ther, Phillip S .’s af

fidavit admits that he failed to c omply with the service plan by

failing to complete par enting classes. Thus, Phillip S . did not set up a meritorious def ense. We, theref

ore, hold that the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion in fi n d i n g P h i llip S .’s
a pp e llate po int

re g ard ingthe de nia l of

his mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l to be fr ivo lou s. C ONCL US I ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice