NO. 07-07 -021 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER8, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE INT EREST OF T.U., K. U., and K.U.

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 72 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; nd NO. 200 5-53 0,7 83; HON. KEVIN HART, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t J enni fer U pton appeal s from a final order ter minat ing her parent al ri g hts to her

three mi nor

ch il dren, T.U., K .U ., and K. U. I n doi ng so , s he c hal len g es the leg al and factu al suffici ency of the evide n ce su ppor ti ng the sta tutor

y g ro unds for ter minat ion ; s he does not cont estthe deci si on th at t e rm inati on w as in the b esti nterest s of the c hil dren, h ow ev er . W e aff ir m the order of the t ri al cour

t. Standa rd

of Rev iew The appl ic abl e standards of re v iew are found i n In re J. F. C. , 96 S. W .3d 2 56, 2 66- 6 7 ( T ex . 200 2) and In r e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d 1 7, 25 ( Tex . 200 2)

. W e refer t he par ti es to th em .2

Appl ic ati on of Sta ndar ds The cour t found byclear

and conv inc ing ev ide nce that Upt on 1) kn ow ing ly pl aced or knowing ly

allow ed th e children to rema in in cond it io n s o r surroundin gs w hich end angered the ph y sical or emo tiona l we ll-being of the childre n, 2) en gaged in condu ct or knowing ly

placed the childre n w it h p erson s w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich end anger e d t h e p hysical or em otion al w ell-being of the childre n, an d 3) failed to comp ly
w ith the provi sions of

a court orde r that spe cif ically estab lis h e d the act ions ne cessary for her to ob tain t h e ret urn of the childre n. Suf

f icient evidence supp orting the existence
o f a n y o ne of thos e three s tatut or y g ro unds obl ig ates us to aff ir m the jud g ment. See In
re A.V ., 113 S.W .3d 355 , 362 (Tex. 2003 ) ( so recognizi ng). Of rec ord i s e v ide nce o f U p to n ’s li v ing w it h phy si cal ly v iol ent men. O ne k il led a child of hers. Ano the r ph y sically abu sed h er. Ex pert te stimo ny rev eale d tha t exposure to such beh avior can h ave “seri ous” imp act up on h er children. Other evidence disclosed 1) th a tano the r child w as sexually abu sed b y

ano the r y out h’s fath er w hile in Upt on’ s c are, 2) thata c hil d had die d from medi cal co ndi ti ons w hil e i n her ca re , 3) that tw o of her

ch il dren prev iou sl y

had been remov ed from h er ca re , 4 ) th a t Upt on had habi tua lly i n ges ted c ontroll ed s ubst ances ( as did one or more of the men w it h w hom she and her

ch il dren l iv ed) , 5 ) th a t she drov e w hil e i ntox ic ated and s ucc umbed to an acc ide nt w it h at lea st one c hil d i n the ca r, 6) th at s he had been i ncarcerated ov er 20 ti mes for su ch cr imes as pos ses si on of co ntroll ed s ubst ances , pub li c i ntox ic ati on, D W I,
credi t c ard abus e, an d the ft w it h a c re ditca rd , 7) thatrepeated cr imi nal co n d u ct can hav e an adv erse aff ectupon the w ell -b ein g of chi ldren, 8 ) that sh e c o u ld not prov ide a3

sta ble home, 9) thatsh e knew of her def ic ien ci es and coul d not cor re ct, but onl y repeat, them, 10) thatsh e had left he r y oung ch il dren alone in a motel room w hil e w or ki ng ( t h o u g h s h e p u r p o rt e d l y a s k e d a n o t h e r mo t e l g u e s t t o w a t c h t h e m) , 1 1 ) t h a ts h e h a d l e ft her ch il dren uns uper

v is ed i n a b ath t ub w hil e k now ing thatone enj oy ed p la yi ng w it h the faucet, 12) thatone of her chi ldren w as sev erely bur ned w hen l eft u n su p e rv is ed i n the batht ub, 1 3) thatsh e w oul d nothav e tak en her bur ned c hil d to obtai n medi cal treatment had s he k now n tha t t he St ate w as to be com e i n volve d in the i nci dent, 14) thatsh e w as not c apabl e of maki ng dec is ion s n eces sar y to suc ces sfull y

rais e c hild re n , 1 5 ) thatsh e had al re ady

reli nq uis hed her

r ig hts to three of her

ch il dren, 1 6) thatsh e routi nel y l eft her chi ldren i n the ca re of her phy si cal ly

v iol ent 1 7 y ear

ol d, dr ug abus ing b o yfrie nd ( Upt on
w as ov er

thi rty ), 17) thatU pton and her ch il dren w ere ev ic ted from an apart ment after
e n ga ging in a dom estic distu rban ce w ith he r 17 y ear old b oyfrien d, 18 ) that she w ould chang e address es w it hout noti fyi ng C PS , 1 9 ) that she faile d to compl ete a dr ug and
a lco h o l a ss ess ment as req uired, 2 0) thatsh e w oul d focus on o nly one of the c hil dren
w hil e l eaving th e o thers unsup er v is ed dur ing v is it ati ons by C PS w or kers, 21) thather chi ldren had emoti onal /behav ioral probl ems, and 2 2 ) th a t s he fail ed to att end t he final hear ing to deci de te rmi nati on al thoug h s he had been no ti fied of i ts date. F ina ll y , t he
ev ide nce ind ic ates thatthe chi ldren i n q uest ion w ere four, two, an d tw o y ears o ld. As prev io u sly menti oned, one of the g ro unds found to j ust ify ter minat ion i nv olv ed Upt on’ s e ng ag ing i n c onduc t or kn ow ing ly

pl aci ng t h e c h ildren w it h persons w ho eng ag ed i n c onduc t w hic h endan g ered th e phy si cal o r e m oti onal w ell -b ein g of the chi ldren. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . §161.00 1( 1) (E ) (V er non Su pp. 2 006)

. To sat is fy it , the S tate need no t hav e prov ed th at t he c hil dren ati ssu e h e re we re the focus of the4

condu ct or

thatthey

w ere ac tual ly

har med by

i t. In re C. J.F

. 1 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 3 , 3 5 1 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 2003, pet. deni ed)

. Rat her , proof that Upt on p u rsu e d a c ourse of condu ct hav ing the eff ectof endang er ing her ch il dren s uff ic ed. See id. An d, t he evidence we i t e m ized ab ove does just th at. In o the r w ords, it provided th e trial court
am ple ba sis upon w hich to form a f irm conviction and belief th at Upto n en gaged in cond uct or kno w ingly placed the childre n w ith pe rson s wh o en gaged in condu ct endang er ing the phy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of T.U. , K. U. and K.U

. See In r e S. P., 168 S.W .3d 197 , 204 -05 (Te x . App .–Dallas 2 005 , n o p et.) (f inding the ev iden ce legally suffici ent w hen t here w ere i nci dents of domest icv iol ence, the mother la ck ed parenti ng sk il ls and jud g ment and fail ed to take h e r m e d ic ati on, a nd th ere w as ev ide nce one or tw o c hil dren no t the subj ectof the t er minat ion had been s ex ual ly mol est ed by

the father but t he mothe r did not bel iev e the chil dren w ere endang ered)

. And, w hil e it maybe t hat other ev ide nce show ed th at s he of l ate mai ntai ned empl oy ment, atten ded v is it ati ons
w it h her ch il dren, a nd ac ti v ely par ti ci pated in therapy a n d co unsel ing w hen s he at t e n d e d , t h a t e v i d e n c e d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o i g n o r e t h e hi sto ryof endang er ment t o w hic h the ch il dren had been ex posed

. In sum , legally

and factu ally

suf f icient evidence supp orted at least o ne sta tuto ry groun d upo n w hich termina tion w as base d. Accordin gly , the orde r of term in a t io n is aff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e