NO. 07-07 -003 4-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 D SEPTEM BER6, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ In t he IN TERES T OF T.A.A. V., a c hil d

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T ER RY COU NT Y; st NO. 17, 031 ; HON. J. BLAIR CHERRY , JR., PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Paul a J ean Vi ck ers a ppeal s from the ter minat ion of her parental r ig hts to her

so n T.A.A. V. She do es so by co ntendi ng the ev ide nce is l eg all y and fa ctu all y

i nsuffici ent t o show thatter minat ion i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Appl ic able Law The appl ic abl e sta ndards of rev iew are found i n In r

e J.F.C ., 96 S.W .3d 256, 26 6- 67 (Tex . 200 2) and In r

e C .H., 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002 ). W e refer the litigants to th ose opi nio ns for a dis cus si on of them. Mo re ov er , we note thatev ide nce est abl is hin g a s tatut or y g ro und for ter minat ion may als o be used to suppo rt a findi ng that the best int erest of the c hil d w ar ra nts ter minat ion of the p arent/c hil d rela ti onshi p. In r e C .H., 89 S. W .3d a t 28; In r e P. E.W., 105 S. W .3d 7 71,2

779 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2003 , no pe t.). T he court foun d by clear and convincing evidence that Vi ck ers 1) v olu ntar il y l eft the c hil d al one or

i n the pos ses si on of anoth er not the p arent and ex presse d an in ten t notto return, 2) know ingly placed or know ingly

allow ed th e child to rem ain in con dition s or surround ings that en dan gered the physical or e m otion al w ellbei ng of the c hil d, 3) eng ag ed i n c onduct or know ing ly pla ced the c hil d w it h persons w ho eng ag ed i n c onduct t hat e ndang ered th e physi cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of the chi ld, and 4) us ed a cont ro ll ed subs tanc e (a s defined by chapt er 481 of the Tex as Hea lt h and Safety Cod e) i n a mann er

thatendang ered th e heal th or safety of t he chi ld and faile d to compl ete
a cou rt-ordered su b s t a n c e a buse treatm entprogram. Vickers doe s not con test th ese findi ng s o n appea l. Al so noteworthy are the ind ic ia w hic h are know n as the Holley facto rs. The y w ere
cons ide re d by the cour t i n Ho lle y

v. A da ms , 544 S.W .2d 367 (Tex. 1976 ), to be he lpf ul in
ass ess ing the chi ld’ s b esti nterest

. Inc lud ed among them are: 1) the desi re s of the c hil d, 2) the emoti onal and phy si cal needs of the c hil d now and in the f uture, 3)the emoti onal and physi cal dang er

to the c hild n o w a n d i n the future, 4) the parental abi li ti es of the ind iv idu als se eki ng cu sto dy , 5) the prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t t hose ind iv idu als to promote t he best int erest of the c hil d, 6) the pla ns for th e c hil d by thos e i ndi v idu als se eki ng cus t o d y , 7 ) t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e h o me , 8 ) t h e a c t s o r o mi s s i o n s o f t h e p a rent w hic h may indicat e tha t the ex isting parent/ child relation ship i s not a prop er one , and 9) any excuse for th e acts oro m issi ons of the parent. In r e P. E.W., 105 S. W .3d a t 779 -8 0. One n eed not p ro v e tha t eac h Holley factor fa vors t er minat ion , id. at 78 0, an d the l is t i s n ot
ex haust iv e. In r

e C

. J

. F

. , 1 3 4 S

. W .3d 343 , 354 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2003 , pet . den ied). The re mu s t s i mp l y

b e en ou g h ev i de nc e from w hi c h th e factfi nd er c an rea s on ab l y

for m aVi ck er s cl ai m ed a t t r i al t hat she was i ncapaci t at ed by hav i ng used cr ack coca i ne t hat m or ni ng a nd 1 t hat she bel i ev ed sh e was onl y gr ant i ng t he H um phr ey s t em por ar y cust odyofher son whi l e she was go i ng t o h ave to “si t

. . . out ” a t i ck et f ordr i v i ng wi t hout i nsur ance whi ch he r gr andm ot herpai d on t he sa m e da y V i c k e rs s i g n e d th e a ff i d a v i t.

Paul a Jun e Vi ck er s was bo t h t he a dopt ed g r andm ot her a nd m ot herof Vi ck er s. Paul a Jun e ha d 2 ad op t ed V i c k ers ’ bi ol og i c al m othe r, S an dy H ol c om be , w he n s he w as t w o y ea rs o l d, an d t he n a do pted V i c k ers a fte r s h e w a s b o rn
.

W hen Paul a Jun e f i r st l ear ned t hat t he Hum phr ey s had t he ch i l d, Vi ck er s t ol d Paul a Jun e t hat he had 3 b e e n ta k e n o r k i d n a p e d a n d P a u l a J u n e c a l l e d th e p o l i c e
.

T .A .A .V . w a s th e m i d d l e c h i l d o f V i c k e rs
. 4 3 f ir m conv icti on or

bel ief tha t t he c hil d’s bes t i nterestw ar ra nts ter minat ion

. In r e P. E.W., 105 S. W .3d a t 780

. Appl ic ati on of Law T ermin ation w as sou ght byDenise Ann a nd Bob by Joe Hum phre y (the Hum phre y s)
w ho w is h e d t o a dopt the c hil d. The Hu mphre y s were unrela ted t o the ch il d, bu t he w as often l eft in the ca re o f Bobby Jo e’s daug hter

D asha Humphrey

w ho w as a fri end of Vickers. An af

f idavit of relinquishme nt of pare nta l rig hts was execute d by Vickers on Ap ril 28, 2 004, w it h her

kn ow led g e tha t t he H umphrey s w is hed to per manentl y ca re for t he c hil d. How ever, Vickers rev oked tha t af f idavit on May 7, 20 04. The re w as evidence thatVickers 1 bel iev ed th e chil d w as better of f w it h the H umphrey s b ut t hat s he w as afrai d her adopt ed mother , Pa ula Ju ne Vi ck ers ( Paul a J une) , upon w hom sh e reli ed financ ia lly, w oul d be 2 angry w hen she l earn ed of her execution of the do cum ent . Further, the re w as evidence that Paul a J une press ured Vi ck ers i nto mak ing the re v ocat ion

. 3 Al so a p p e a r i n g o f re c o rd i s e v i d e n c e t h a t V i c k e rs w a s tw e n ty t h re e a t t h e t ime of tr i al , ha d th ree c hi l dren by th ree di fferen t fat he rs , an d ha d be en ma r r i ed to n on e of t he m. 4 She no t onl y

fail e d t o c omplet e hi g h s chool but als o hel d onl y two j obs for a total of4

approx imat ely

four months si nce 2004. So too d o w e find ev ide nce that she 1) di d not maint ain a pe rmane nt ho me as she li v ed of f and on w it h her

adopt ed mothe r, her

bi olo g ic al mother , v ar iou s b oyfrie nds, or f ri ends, 2) had nev er

been sel f-supp orti ng , 3) li v ed i n s ev eral pla ces l ack ing uti li ti es, 4) us ed cocai ne and crack co cai ne from 2 000 t hroug h Apr il 2004, often on a dai ly

bas is and w hil e preg nant, 5) smok ed and drank while p re g nant w it h her firs t c hil d, 6)w as under the influ ence of into x ic ants w hen in the presenc e of anothe r of her chi ldren, 7 ) left T.A. A.V. on manyo cc asi ons w it h oth er persons , i ncl udi ng D asha Humphrey , s o s he ( Vi ck ers) co uld par ty or us e dr ug s, 8) l ostcu sto dy of her ol destch il d on
one o cc a sio n b ased on an all eg ati on s he had bur ned hi m w it h a c ig arette, 9) pl ed g uil ty and w as plac ed on probati on for food stamp fraud i n October 2004, 10) att ended a par ty at w hic h intox ic ants w ere ing est ed day s pri or to ple adi ng gui lty

to the food s tamp c harg e, 11) had alt ered c heck s g iv en to her by he r a d o p te d m other , 12)co uld not prov ide proof tha t she ha d com plete d a cou rt-ordered drug treatm entprogram she ente re d in August 2004, 13) co uld not re member how l ong the dru g t re a tm e nt prog ra m la ste d, w ho her spons or w as, or any of the tw elv e s teps i nv olv ed in it , and 14) st ated she had notst opped dr ink ing al cohol unti l Janua ry 2005, ev en th oug h the ter ms of her 2004 probati on req uired her to do s o. Ot h e r ev ide nce re v eal ed th at C hil d Protecti v e Ser v ic es w as cal led to the hom e of Vickers’ biological moth er w hen Vicke rs w as liv ing there w ith T .A.A .V. be cause the liv ing cond itions w ere filthy. Her boyf riend’s house w here at she also l iv ed w as similarly filt hy

. Onc e, V ic kers‘ adopt ed m o th e r had t o retr iev e T.A.A .V. and hi s b ro ther from t he home of a fri end of Vi ck ers a fter a par ty w as hel d the re and all t h e adul ts had g one t o s le e p le a vin g t h e ch il d re n u n s u p e rvi s e d

. Fi n a ll y, e vid e n c e d is c lo s e d t h a tt h e Hu m p h re ysI t app ear s t hat l egal cu s t od y fo r t he o l dest chi l d r em ai ned wi t h hi s f at her , al t hough t he f at herwas 5 a l l o w i n g V i c k e rs to h a v e p o s s e s s i o n o f h i m
.

Paul a Jun e st at ed t hat Vi ck er s was l ear ni ng t o he l p i n t he f am i l y ’ s pest ext er m i nat i on b usi ness, but 6 th e re w a s e v i d e n c e th a t i t w a s n o t a fu l l -ti m e b u s i n e s s
. 5 had c ared for

the chi ld for tw o and one- hal f y ears b efore t ri al, made a g ood l iv ing , had a sat is factor

y , s tabl e home, and bon ded w it h the ch il d. Ev ide nce that a mother ca nnot prov ide a s tabl e, s afe, and s ecure env ironment suppo rt s a findi ng thati t i s i n a chi ld’ s best in terestto ter minat e the mother ’s r ig hts

. See Han n v . Texa s Dep’

t of Protec ti ve and R egul ator y S er vices, 9 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 , 8 3 -8 4 (T e x. App.–E l Paso 1998, pet. deni ed) (uphol din g the ter minat ion bec ause ev ide nce appeared of record illustrating that th e pa rent cou ld notprovi de su ch an envi ro nm ent ). And, w hile
some o f Vic kers’ co nduct inv olv ed chi ldren other than T.A.A. V., a parent’ s c onduct di re cte d to ward on e ch ild ca n su p p o rtte rm in a ti o n of pa re n ta l righ ts as to an o th e r ch ild eve n th o u gh itdi d notoc cur

i n the c h ild ’s presenc e. In r e S. A.P. , 169 S. W .3d 6 85, 7 03 ( Tex . Ap p.– W aco 2005, no pet .)

. Admittedl y , atthe ti me of tr ial , t here w as ev ide nce that Vick ers h ad pas sed three dr ug tes ts before t ri al, had ex erci sed her su per v is ed v isi ta ti o n r ig hts w it h the ch il d, was li vin g wit h h e r a d o p t e d m o t h e r i n a sa t is fa c t o ry h o m e , a n d h a d p o s s e s s io n o f h e r o t h e r two chi ldren. H ow ev er , s he remaine d financ ial ly depend ent on g ov er nment ass is tanc e and 5 her adopt ed mothe r w ho w as 69 y ears o ld and ex per ien ci ng heal th probl ems. Nor had Vi ck ers made effort t o att end s chool or obta in employ ment. 6 Gi v en th e l ack

of a c hal len g e to the s tatut or y grounds j ust ify ing ter minat ion and the
ev ide nce re ci ted a bov e, t he tr ial co urt coul d hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv icti on th at ter minat ion of Vi ck ers’ parental r ig hts w as in the b esti nterestof the c hil d. In r e J.F.C ., 966

S. W .3 d at 27 2 ( ho l di ng th at al th ou g h at ti me of tr i al th e mo th er h ad fou nd w or k , th e ho me
w as a s afe env ironment, and the parent s w ere descr ibe d as a lov ing co upl e, a factfinder could reason ably fo rm a f irm conviction or b e li e f t hattermin ation w as in the child’s best int erest ); In r

e A. C. B., 198 S. W .3d 2 94, 3 00 ( Te x. App.–A mari ll o 2006, no p et.) ( hol din g th a td e s p it e e v iden ce tha t at the time o f trial, the m oth er w as ma intain ing stable employ ment and hous ing , k eepi ng her home c lea n, pa y ing ch il d s uppor t, visit ing her chi ldren, a nd proper ly tak ing her medic ati on, the cour t coul d hav e formed a firm bel ief tha t term inatio n w as in the best inte rest of t he child). Th us, w e f ind th e evidence both legally and factu all y

su ff ic ien t. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice