Al t hough t her e ar e f i v e chi l dr en t he subj ectoft hi s pr oceedi ng, Appel l antseeks t o ap peal t hatpor t i on 1 oft he o r derper t ai ni ng t o t he t er m i nat i on o fhi s par ent al r i ght s t o M
. G
. , D
. G
. , S. G
. , and E. G
. onl y . Appel l ant is n o t R .M .’s b io lo g ic a l f a th e r . A s to R .M ., th e r ig h ts o fth e u n k n o w n f a t h e rw e r e te r m in a te d a n d , a s to a ll chi l dr en, t he m ot her ’ s r i ght s wer e al so t er m i nat ed. N ei t her t he unknown f at her nort he m ot herapp eal f r om t he as s oc i ate j ud ge ’ s t erm i na t i on orde r. NO. 07-09 -013 7-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A NO VEM BER9, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF M. G., D .G. , S. G., E.G ., AN D R. M. , C HI LDR EN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 72 ND DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 8- 542,603 ; H ON ORABLE KEVI N C. H ART, ASSO CI ATE JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Harold Gl adden, III , cha lle ng es an as soc iat e j udg e’sM arch 30, 2 009, order ter minat ing hi s p arental r ig htsto hisch il dren and appoi nti ng Appel lee , t he 1 Depa rtme nt of

Family and Protect iv e Services ( the “De p a rtme nt”), as perm ane nt soleW her e a r equestf or a de nov o hear i ng bef or e t he r ef er r i ng court i s not t i m el y f i l ed, t he j udgm entof 2 t he a ssoci at e j udge becom es t he j udgm entoft he r ef er r i ng co ur t byope r at i on o fl aw wi t houtr at i f i cat i on b yt he re fe rr i n g c o u rt. See T ex . F am . C od e A nn . § 2 01
. 20 41 (a) ( V ern on 20 08 ).

T ex . F am . C od e A nn . § 2 63
. 40 5 (V ern on 20 08 ). U nle s s o th e rw i s e i nd i c ated , t hi s an d a l l fut ure 3 sect i on r ef er ences r ef ert o t he T exas Fam i l yC ode.

R ec en t l y , som e of

t he r equi r em ent s of

sect i on 2 63. 405( b) and ( i ) of t he T exas Fam i l yC ode ha ve 4 b e e n th e c e n te r o f c o n tro v e rs y . See In re J. O
. A. , 2 8 3 S .W .3 d 3 3 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 9 ); I n re M. N. , 262 S. W
. 3d 7 99 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). See also I n re S
. N. , __ S
. W
. 3d __ , N o. 11 -08 -00 29 30 C V , 20 09 W L 2 20 98 63 , at * 3-5 (T e x .A p p .– E a s tl a n d J u l y2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.) (n o t y e t re l e a s e d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); I n re S
. N. , 287 S
. W
. 3d 1 83 (T e x .A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.); I n re D .W
. , 2 4 9 S .W .3 d 6 2 5 (T e x .A p p .– F o rt W o rth ), p e t. d e n i e d , 2 6 0 S .W .3 d 4 6 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ); I n re A
. F. , 2 5 9 S .W .3 d 3 0 3 ( T e x .A p p .– B e a u m o n t 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); I n re M. C. T. , 25 0 S
. W
. 3d 16 1 (T ex . A pp . –F ort W ort h 2 00 8, no pe t
. ). 2 manag ing co nser

v ator
. By

a s ole i ss ue, A ppel lan t contend s the ev ide nce isl eg all y and 2 factual ly i nsuffici ent to s uppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g thatter minat ion of hisparental r ig hts to his four children was in th eir best inte rest. Th e Depa rtme nt con ten ds tha t this Court is precl uded fro m co n sid e ring Appel lan t’ s i ss ue bec ause he fail ed toco mply w it h the req ui rem en tso f F am i l y

Co de se cti on 2 63 .4 05
. Ag ree i ng w i th t he D ep ar tm en t, we affi r m. 3 Stateme nt of

Points Sect ion 263. 405 of the Tex as Fami ly C ode prov ide s i n rele v ant p art:

4 (b ) Notl ater

than the 15th day after the date a final order issi g ned by the tr ial judge, a party who in ten ds to request a new trial or a ppe al the order mu st f ile w it h the tr ial co urt: * ** (2 ) if an a ppeal i s s oug ht, a s tatementof the pointor poi ntson w hich th e pa rty

inten ds to ap pea l. (b -1 ) The st atement under Subs ect ion ( b) (2 ) ma y b e c ombine d w it h a mo tion for new trial. * **See T ex . F am . C od e A nn . §1 61
. 00 1(1 )( D ) ( V ern on 20 08 ). 5 See T ex . F am . C od e A nn . §1 61
. 00 1(1 )( E ) ( V ern on 20 08 ). 6 See T ex . F am . C od e A nn . §1 61
. 00 1(1 )( Q ) ( V ern on 20 08 ). 7 3 (i) T he a ppe llate cou rt may not con sider any issue that was no t specif ically present ed tothe tr ial co urt i n a ti mely fil ed s tatementof poi ntson w hic h the par ty i ntendsto appeal or

i n a s tate ment c ombine d w it h a mot ion for n ew trial. For purpose s of

this subse c t io n , a claim tha t a judicial de cision is cont ra ry to the e v ide nce or

thatthe ev ide nce isfactual ly or l eg all y i nsuffici ent isnot suffici entl y

sp eci fic to preser

v e an is sue for appe al. The tr ial co urt’ s t er minat ion order , s ig ned on Ma rc h 30, 2009, found that Appel lan t had ( 1)kn ow ing ly

pl aced o r know ing ly

al lowed th e c hil dren toremain in condi ti ons or surroun dings w hich en dan ger their physi cal or emo tiona l well-being, (2) en gaged in 5 cond uc to r k n o win gly

placed the childre n w ith pe rsons w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich end angered the ph ysical or emo t io n a l well-being of the childre n, and (3) know ingly 6 eng ag ed i n cri minal conductthat has resu lt ed in the father’sco nv icti on of an offense and c o n f in e m e n to r i m p ri s o n m e n ta n d in a b il ity t o ca re fo r t h e ch il d re n fo r n o tle s s t h a n two y ears from the date of fil ing the peti ti on. The order of t er minat ion als o found that 7 ter minat ion of the p arent- chi ld re lat ion shi p was in the chi ldren’ s best in terest . The follo w ing day, w ithou t f iling a mo tion for new trial, App ellantf iled a pro se notice of app eal in w hich he “ dis ag re e[d] w it h s tatementof poi nts ” and s et forth t he foll ow ing cl aims : [Ap pellan t] was incarcera ted during the pe nde ncy of this suit and followed all the req uests i n hi s “ ser v ic e pl an.” Ev ide nce est abl is hed t hat [Appel lan t] isel ig ibl e for parole and th is i s n ot a Sect ion 42.1 2( 3) (g ) offense.4

[Termi nation] g oes ag ain st the t est imony adduc ed i n tha t [Appel lan t] has par ti ci pated in pr is on acti v it ieseq uivale nt to the “ser v ic e plan” and parental dut ies. Tex as Gov er nment C ode § 508.145 (f)i ndi cat ed th at i n m a te i s e li g ibl e for re lea se w hen actual calend ar time plusgood ti me eq ual s o ne- fourth of the sent ence . [App ellant ] was incarcera ted o n M a y 2 7, 20 07, and was be fore the p arole board i n J une, 2008. St at emen t of

Po in ts C on ta in ed Wit hi n No ti ce o f A pp eal The De par

tment arg ues that secti on 263. 405 i s c lea r and una mbig uous and doe s notprovi de for the f iling of a state me nt of

point s in comb inatio n w ith a no tice of app eal. El aborati ng on t hat a rgu ment, itdi sag re es w it h thi s C our t’ s o pin ion co nsi der ing poi nts ra is ed i n a noti ce of appeal i n In re S.B .R. , N o. 07 -0 8- 00421- CV , 200 9 W L 16778 36, a t * 5 n.7 (Tex.App –Am arillo 2009 , no pe t.). W e c o n c l u d e t h a tit is unnec es s a r y fo r u s t o d e t e r mi n e w h e t h e r t h e fi l i n g o f a sta tement of p o i n t s i n c o mb i n a t i o n w i t h a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , u n d e r t h e fa ct s o f t h i s c a se, compl iesw it h the req uirementsof secti on 263. 405. Thisis so for two reas ons: (1)the tr ial cour t c onst ru ed Appel lan t’ s noti ce of ap peal as a moti on for new tr ial and a s tatementof poi nts may

be c ombine d w it h a moti on for new tr ial ; and ( 2)resol uti on of thati ss ue i s n ot neces sar

y to our di spos it ion of Appel lan t’ s a ppeal
. One of the pu rpose s of

requir ing points for app eal is to prom ptly bring reversible er ro r to t he tr ial co urt’ s a ttent ion
. In re A.F. , 259 S.W .3d 303, 306 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont 2008, no pet .)
. The g oal of secti on 263. 405 i s to dec re ase p o st -ju d g ment del ays w henSect i on 2 63. 405( i ) pr ov i des t hat i ssues i n a st at em ent of poi nt s be speci f i cal l y“ pr esent ed” t o t he t r i al 8 c o u rt. 5 chi ldren are under

the De par

tment’ s c are. In re M.N. , 262 S.W .3d 799 , 803 (Tex. 2008 ). Howev er , t he Leg is lat ure i ntended se cti on 2 6 3 .405(b)and (i ) to y iel d j ust , fair , and reaso nab le results w ithin th e legislativ e goal of obta ining ex ped ited d isposition of app eals. Id. Notwi thsta ndin g tha t App ellantinclude d his poin ts for app eal i n his not ice of app eal, the record reflects t hat t he poi nts were “ present ed” to the tr ial courtfor consi derati on. The 8 tr ial co urt hel d a hear ing and s ig ned an order enti tl ed “ Cor

re cte d Or

der on M oti on fo r New Tr ial and Not ice of Appeal,” w hich recites in pa rt “The Motion for New Trial of this ca use filed by Res pondent [Appel lan t] is hereby DE NI ED .” Thus, the tr ial court co n strued App ellant ’s notice of

a ppe al com bine d w ith a state me nt of point s as a mo tion for new trial. Und er the facts present ed i n thi s p arti cul ar case, we concl ude the intentof secti on 263. 405 to exped it io u s ly

resolv e term inatio n case s was no t thwarted by the trial court’s cons ide ra ti on of Appel lan t’ s s tatementof poi nts
. How ever, ev en if

we w ere to construe the sta tem ent s conta ined w ithin Ap pellan t’s noti ce of appeal asa s tatementof poi ntsfor p ur pos e s o f s ect ion 263. 405, nothi ng cont ain ed w it hin thatdoc ument can b e c o n strued as co ntes ti ng the leg al or factual suf f iciency of

the evid e n c e to supp ort the decision thattermin ation was in the children’sG i v e n th e c o n s ti tu ti o n a l d i m e n s i o n o f p a re n ta l ri g h ts , H olick v. Sm ith, 68 5 S
. W
. 2d 18 , 20 (T ex . 19 85 ), 9 an a ppel l at e cou r t shou l d con st r ue p l eadi ngs i n a gener ous m anner and wi t h l ess st r i ngentst andar ds t han fo rm a l p l e a d i n g s d ra fte d b ya tto rn e y s . H aine s v. K ern er, 404 U
. S. 519 , 520 , 9 2 S
. C t
. 594 , 30 L. Ed. 2d 6 52 (19 72 ). 6 besti nterest
. I nasmuc h asthe is sue bei ng rais ed by Appel lan t on appeal was not 9 present ed tothe tr ial court , nothi ng has been preser v ed for appeal
. SeeTex . F am. C ode Ann. § 263. 405( i) ; In r e R .C ., 243 S.W .3d 674 , 676 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 07, no pe t.). Con seq uentl y , Ap pel lan t’ s is sue isov er ru led and the t ri al cour t’ s o rd er ter minat ing hisparental r ig hts i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Ca m p b e ll, J. , c o n cu rrin g.