1 J.L. w as named in the De part ment’s origi

nal petition, b

ut the termi

nation a ction concern

in g her wa s s ev er ed int o a s ep ar at e c au se an d s he wa s e ve nt ua lly r et ur ne d t o Vir gi nia ’s cu st o dy. 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00038-CV
Virginia Tr evino and Jua n Trevino , Appel lan ts v. Texas D epartment of P rotective and Regulator y Services, Appel

lee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNT Y, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-FL-151, HONORAB LE GARY L. S TEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING Appe llant s Jua

n a nd V i rgi ni a Trev i no hav e f our ch i l dren together, d

augh ters A .T., C.A .T., a nd K .T., a nd son J.T . A t the ti me of trial , A.T. was ni

ne y ears’ old, C.A .T. was two and
one hal f, K .T. was about fourt een m onths, and J.T. was al

most seve

n an d one hal f y ears ’ old. Vir gin ia ha s a no t he rda ug ht er , J. L. , wh o wa s t hir t ee n a t t r ial; Jua n is n ot her f athe r. In Novem ber 1998, be fo r e K . T . wa s bo rn, it wasdi scovered th at C.A .T. ha

d suf f ered a skul l f racture . The Texas Dep ar t ment of

Pro tecti v e a n d R eg ul ator y Servi ce s (th e D ep ar

tmen t) w as ca l l ed to i n v esti gate the ci rcumstances surroundin

g C.A.T.’s i

nj ury. After Juan

an d V irg iniaal

l eg ed l y v i ol ate d a De pa rtm entim posedsafet y plan in April 199 9, t he De pa r t me nt re moved J.L ., A.T ., J.T ., and C .A. T. fro m the Trevinos’ cu sto dy

an d f i l ed a p eti ti on se ek i n g to termi

nate the Trevi

nos’ paren

talri ghts . Wh

en K.T.
was born i n A ugust 1999, she

wasplace d i

nto tem porary care and th e D ep ar

tmen t am en de d i ts pe ti ti on to in cl ude her. 1 In October 2000, the cause was pr ese nt ed t o a jury, w hich fou nd Ju an’s a nd2

Virgini a’s parental rel

ationsh ips with a ll four chi ldren should be termi

nated. The di strict court signed a d ec r ee o f t er minat io n fr o m wh ich Ju an an d V irg inia a pp ea l.

Juan con ten dstha t se cti on 161 .0 01( 1) (O ) o f the Te xas Fa mil y Cod e, allowing for t he term i na ti on of p aren tal ri ghts f or fa i l ure to com

pl y wi th a c ourt order, is unco nst itu t ionally vague and overbroadand a n unlawfu l delega t ion o f legislative p ow er t o t he ju di cia ry. See Te x. Fa m. Co de Ann. § 161.00 1(1)(O)(We st Supp . 2002)
. Juan f urther contends the evi

dence wasi ns uf f i cien t to support th e v erdi ct. Vir gin ia

co nt ends t hat t he ev ide nc e w as leg ally a nd fac t ua lly i ns uf f i cien t to support termi nation un der sec t ions 1 61. 001 (1 )( D) or (E ) o r t o s upp or t a finding t hat t er minatio n was in the chil dren’s be st i

ntere st. Id. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) (Wes t Su pp. 200 2) . S he fur t her co nt ends t he dis trictcourt erred in

subm ittin g a j ury ch

arge o n se ct io n 1 61 . 00 1( 1) ( O) an d in re f us i n g h er re qu ests fo ra mis t r ial. Al

thoughwe find t his c as e e xt r eme ly clo se , we ho ld t hat t he evidenc e is fact ually and leg ally s uffic ien t t o su pp o r t t he jur y’s ve r dic t an d o ve rrule t he o t he riss ue s o n a pp ea l. SUFFICIE NCY OF EVIDE NCE A trial court ma y term in ate a parent-child rel

ationsh ip i f i t fi nds (1) that t he paren

t has engaged in any of t he conduct set ou t as g ro unds for t er minatio n and ( 2) t hat t er minatio n is in the chil d’s bes t int er es t ; t he D ep ar t ment mus t es t ablish t hes e e lemen t s by c lea r a nd c o nvinc ing p ro o f. Te x. Fam. C od e Ann. § 16 1.0 01 ( West Sup p. 2 002 ); Leal v. Texas Dep’ t of Prote ctive & Regulatory Servs. , 2 5 S. W.3d 315 , 31 9 (T ex. App .—Au st in 2000, no p et .) ; D.O. v. Texas Dep’t of Hu ma n Servs. , 851 S. W.2 d 35 1, 352 -5 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us t in 1993, no writ). Clear an

d convi nci ng ev ide nce3

is an i ntermedi ate standard of proof fal li ng be tween the standards of the pr epo nder ance of t he evi dence and proof bey

ond a reas onab l e doubt. Leal , 25 S.W .3d at 31 9. Thi s heightene d stan

dard
o f pr o o f do es no t ch an ge t he st an da r ds by w hic h a n a pp ella t e c o ur t r ev iew s t he su ffic i ency of th e evi dence. Id. at 320 . We re vi ew the l egal suf ficiency of t he evide nce by co nsider ing o nly the evi dence an d in fer en ce s t en din g t o su pp o r t t he find ing , dis r eg ar din g a ll contrar y ev i den ce. Id. at 320- 21; D.O. , 851 S.W.2dat 353. We wil l uph old a f i nd i ng i f i t i s s upp orted by more th an a s ci nti l l a of
evi den ce. Leal , 25 S.W .3d at 32 1. In reviewi ng f actual su fficie nc y, w e v iew all o f t he ev ide nc e in
a n eu t r al lig ht an d s et as ide a ju dg men t o nly if t he ev ide nc e s up po r t ing it is so wea k or con tra ry to t he weight of t he evide nce a s t o be clearl y wrong and un j ust. Id .; D.O. , 851 S.W.2d at 35 3. We will not sub sti tute our j udgm

en t for that of the j ury . Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 321. The jury was asked wh

ether Juan’ s and Vi

rgin ia ’s paren tal rights should be termi

nated under se cti ons 161 .00 1(1 )(D ), (E ), or

(O). Sec ti ons 161 .00 1(1 )(D ) an

d (E ) al l ow f or ter m i na ti on if it i s f ound that t he pa

rent (1) “kn o win gly p lac ed o rkn o win gly a llo we d t he ch ild t o r ema in in
co ndit ions or surro undi

ngswhich end ange r t he physical o r e mot ional we ll-being o f the chi ld” or (2) “en gaged in cond uct or knowin

gly pla ced the chi

ld wi th persons who enga

ged i n conduct whi

ch
endan gers the phy sical or e m oti on al

well-b ei ng of the ch

il d.” Tex. Fam . Code Ann . §§ 161.00 1(1)(D) , (E). Cond uct tha t “en dan gers ” a chi

l d i s m ore than a thre at of m

etaph y sical i nj ury orpos si b l e i l l ef f ects o f an i m perf ect f am i l y en v i ron men t. Texas Dep’t o

f Huma n Servs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (T ex. 1 987 ); Leal , 25 S.W.3dat 325. Ho wever, the conduct need n ot be di rected at the ch i l d or cause the chil

d actual injury; conduct endangers a chil d if it exposes the chil

d to loss or in j ury . Boyd , 727 S. W.2d at 533 ; Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 325. Sect ion 161.001(1) (O) set s out as a4

gr ou nd f or term i n ati on a p aren t’s f ai l ur e to com

pl y wi th a c o ur t o r de rgo ve rning t he r et ur n o f a c hild
rem oved by the D epartm

en t due to abuse

or neg l ect. Tex . Fam

. Code A nn . § 161.0 01(1)(O ). In a t er minat io n c as e, it is appropri ate t o s ubmit t he co nt ro lli

ng issu e o f whet her t he relati onsh i p sh oul d be term i na ted to the j ury

i n the f orm of a broad-f orm q ues tion
. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs . v. E.B. , 8 02 S .W.2 d 64 7, 6 49 ( Tex. 199 0); In re M.C.M. , 5 7 S .W. 3d 2 7, 32 ( Te x. A pp. —H ous ton

[1st Dist.] 2001 , no pet.). Wh en a bro ad-form quest ion i s subm itted, we must up ho ld t he ju ry’ s find ings if any g ro und fo r t er minat io n su pp o rt s t he fi ndi ngs . In re

M.C.M. , 57 S. W.3d at 32; In re D.L. N. , 958 S.W .2d 934 , 937 (Tex. A pp.—W aco 199 7, pet. de

ni ed). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE T his t r ial la st ed a w ee k a nd ne ar ly t hir t y wit ne ss es t es t ifie d. A summary o f the test im ony is necessary

to eval uate t he suff

ici ency of the eviden

ce suppor ting the jury ’s fi ndi ngs. At the tim e of trial, Juan

and Vi rgi ni a had b een

married f or about ten

years . Juan h

ad don e l an ds ca pi n g w ork i n th e p ast, buthe test if

ied he had been i

njured and was r eceivi

ng wor ker’s
co mpensa t ion. Juan

testi f i ed th at he and Virgi

nia hav e four chi ldren and that he h

as two o lde

r daug hters wh o li v e wi th their m ot her i n San A ntonio; addi

tional ly , there are three ot her

chi ldren that mightbe h

is . He has b een m

arried f our t im es an d p ays child sup po rt for “at least fou r” childre n. T he Dep ar t ment f

i rs t got i nv ol ve d w i th th e Trev i nos in March 1994, wh en

Jua n’ s oldes t daugh

ter, D.T., had br uis es all o ve rhe rbo dy a nd fac e. D. T . wa s s ixt ee n a t t ime o f t r ial. She testifi ed that she l

iv ed wi th Jua n fro m the t ime she was three until 1994, when s

he was a bout t en an

d went to liv

e wi th her
m other. D. T. said w hen Ju an and Virg inia became invo lved, D. T. was abo ut five or six. W

hen she
was six o rse ve n, Ju an an d V irg iniasometi me s l eft her

alo ne t o ba bysit t he o t he rch ildr en . D. T . sa id5

Juan scream ed at her and h

it her wi th hi s han d, a broom, and a stick. D.T. said Vi rgin ia was pr ese nt when Ju an ab used D.T. and nev

er tried to st op t he ab

use; i n f act, D.T. testifi

ed that Virg ini a someti me s la ughed wh il e Juan b eat D. T . D. T . sa id o nc e J ua n hit he rhe ad ag ain st t he flo o run t il she passed out . Phot ogr aphs were in tro duced from March 1994 that sh owed b ruise s on D.T.’s fac e, head , a nd bo dy infl

icte d by Jua n. D .T . sa id Jua n only hit he r a nd no t t he o t her childre n. Juan admit t ed s pank ingD.T. when he was f rustrat ed and upset. Wh

en asked about brui ses on D.T.’s shoul der, ch i n, and fac e, he sa id she g ot t hem falli ng o ff a bicycle or beca use he “p r o ba bly hit her by accide nt ” o r fro m his grabbing at her w he n “ [s ]he p rob ab l

y tri ed to es ca pe ” f rom him. Jua n admit t ed t hat he hit D .T . o n her back wit h a belt and s aid he di d n ot kn ow h ow she got brui ses on her legs. He deni ed hi tt in g her wi th any thin g ot her than

his hand o r a belt, and s aid he had si nce l earned that

he sh ould not hi

t his chi ldren . He also denied banging he r he ad o n t he floo r a nd di d n ot re ca l l h er pa ss i n g ou t. D.T .’s sis t er wa s fift ee n yea r s’ o ld at tr ia l. Sh e testif ie d about one night in

1994 when she, D.T., and J uan s har ed a bed. She w ok e up and felt Jua n st ro king her legs and s to ma ch, whi ch fel t inappropri ate and m

ade her un

comf ort abl e. Ja ime Yb arra , a Chi

ld Protective Speci

alis t with the Departmen

t, became in volv ed wi th the Trevi nos i n March 1994, when

D.T.’s brui ses an

d in juri es were reported. Ybarra testif ie d that the Departmen

t, not the Trevi

nos, in si sted that D.T . see a doct or after she w as hu rt . T he chi ldren we r e r emo ve d fr o m t he ho me d ue t o med ica l ne gle ct and physical abuse of D .T. Yb arra testifi ed t ha t t he T r ev ino s init ially

deni ed abusi ng D.T., but then Juan s ai d he h ad pus hed he r, cau sing her to fal l of f h er bicy cl e. Du r ing t he r ap y a c o up le mo nt hs la t er , Ju an ad mit t ed t ha t he ha d p hysic ally2 Hight s t est ifi ed t hat she last babysat C. A.T . o n t he Tuesday be f ore Friday , Novemb er 6, 1998, when her i nj ury was dis covered. However, ot her testim ony i ndicated High

ts baby sat for C.A.T. that Fr id ay. 6 abused D. T. The Tr evinos t old Ybar ra t hat D. T. was a pr oblem child. Ybar ra said t hat D. T. was t he
o nly child abus ed a nd

t hat she w as “sc ape go at ed” by the Trevi nos, mea ni ng sh e was bl am ed for thi ngs such as probl em s i

n thei r marriage or with the other chi ldren . Durin

g some vi si

ts, Jua n w as “ very aggre ssi ve towards [D .T.] bl

am i ng h er f or hav i ng th e ch i l dren rem oved .” Dr. Jef frey Al vi s works at Chi

ldren ’s Hospi

tal i n A ustin . He testifi

ed that C.A.T. was adm itted to the hospi

tal f or a scalp h

em atoma and a skul

l f racture. Dr . Alvis said t he T r ev ino s t o ld hi m that C.A.T. was i

n a b aby si tt er’s care wh

en she was in jured an d th at sh e m i gh t h av e f al l en i n to a co ffee t ab le. Dr . Alvis sa id he wa s c onc ern

ed by tha t ex pl an ati on because , “[g]eneral

ly , in cases wh ereskull f

ractures or o ther fractures in children ar e o bser ved, wit hou t any ade qua t e exp lanat ion,
we ha ve to be con cern ed.”Dr . Alvis sa id t he fr ac t ur e c o uld have been caused by

a fal l or by another per so n, bu

t wi thou t a “ good honest history from

the parents,” he could not t ell the a ctual ca us e or t ime of i nj ury. After

C. A .T. sta

yed ov er n i gh t i n th e h osp i tal an d w i th t he De par t ment’ s ap pr ova l, t he hospi taldischa rg ed C .A. T. into Virg inia’s car e. The hos pit al was instr uct ed t hat Jua n was not t o be
ar ou nd C. A.T . a nd wo uld have t o mo ve o ut of t he ho use . D r. Alvis said no ot her old or healing f racture s we

re f ound on C.A .T. Ber t ha High ts test if ie d that she bab

ys at C.A.T. and neve

r let C.A.T. out o f h

er si gh t. 2 Wh en Hights last ba bysa t fo rC. A. T . , she did not s eeC.A .T. f al l or hi t he r head on an y thi ng , di d n ot hear he r cr y out i n p ai n, an d di d n ot notice an

y i nj ury to her head. Hi

gh ts re cal l ed tha t the Trevi nos calle d and aske d if

sh e k ne w h owC. A.T . g ot hur t ; Jua n did mo st of t he t alking. Hight s t old Jua n she7

did not k now anything a bou t it. Hight s t est ifi ed t hat Jua n t old her t o t ell the D epa rt ment that C.A .T. migh t ha ve hu r t he r se lf falling o n a r ad io in Hights’ house. She also test if ie d that Juan approached her at c hu rch l ater an d tol d her, “ I wa s c om

i ng to l et y ou kn owthat t he b aby

didn ’t fal l a t your house. The bab y f ell a t my ho us e, be ca us e I wa s o ut sid e w o rkin g o n my va n. And my li tt le boy c am e out and told m

e that the baby

had f ell.” Deni se Castaneda Ram

irez, f ormer Departmen

t inv estigator, t estif

ie d that she be ca me in volv ed with the Trevinos on Novemb er 10, 1 998, when Children’s H ospit al repor ted C.A.T .’s inju ry. When

Rami rez spok e to Virgi

nia away f rom Juan, Virgin

ia was upset and concerned because she di d not want to lose h

er ch i l dr en ag ai n . Ram i re z s ai d V i rg i n i a “ ev en wen t as f ar as to say that she d idn’t t hink

the father di

d this , but she di

d not – she wasn ’t there. And if s he h ad to le ave h

er husba nd sh e w oul d, b ec au se

sh e di d n ot want to r is

k losi ng he r chi ldren .” Af

ter inter viewing Ju an, Vi rg in ia , and the other chi

ldren, Rami

rez had n o logica l e xpl anati on for how C.A.T. was i nj ured. Ram irez said she gather ed from Juan’s sta tem en t tha t “ [t]h e on l y pers on that had unsupervised access . . . from the tim

e that the child c ould ha

ve sustaine d the in

jury was Mr. Trevin

o.” Therefore, that night in the hospi tal Ram irez h ad Juan and Vi

rgini a sign the fi rst safety plan

li mi ting his access t o t he childre n. Juan was

required to move out of the fami ly house and w as fo rbidd en fro m having any contact wi

th the ch i l dren
. Ten day s af ter C.A.T. was ad

m i tted to Ch i l dr en ’s Hos pi tal, Ram i re z a gai n tal ke d to Jua n, who off

ered new ex

pla nations for C.A.T.’s i

nj ury. Juan

now bl am ed the other chi ldren

fo r C.A.T .’s in

jury. Fi rst, he sai d their s on to ld Vi rgin ia that A.T. had pushed

C.A.T. in to a wall. The

n he sai d tha t on the d ay C.A .T. was

i nj ured, th e son told h i m A.T. h ad pu shed C.A .T. He said he h ad8

not report ed this

earli er because

he was de

pressed. Juan al

so to ld R am irez that i n 1994 D.T. had brui sed hersel f b y f alli ng off a bun k bed. On Novem

ber 24, Juan

an d V i rg i n i a s i gn ed a n ew saf ety plan spe ci f y i ng th at Vi rgi ni a woul d sup ervi se a

l l contact betwe en

Jua n a nd th e ch i l dren
. Ram irez said Virgi

nia was i ni tial ly cooperat iv

e and v ery protective of the ch ildren. As t ime went on, however, Ramirez beca me co ncer ned a s Virg inia began t o minimi ze t he incident
and stated

that sh e di d not b el i ev e tha t Juan had hu rt C.A.T. Ram irez int er vie we d H igh t s, an d a cc o r din g t o Ra mire z’ s no t es , Hig ht s s aid t hat she bab ys at C.A.T. on Friday

, Novemb er 6, and that C.A.T. “could h ave b umpe d her

he ad on th e f l oor ortab l e, b

ut that [H i gh

ts] d i d n ot se e th i s h appen. ” H i gh

ts tol d Ram i rez C.A .T. w asnot f

us sy on Fri day , but “ may be i t was p ossi

bl e tha t the ch i l d hi t somethi ng or f el l and j ust di

d not cry.” Len Sn y der, a pol i ce of f i cer i n Loc kh ar t, testifi ed that someti

me in Novem ber 1998, Juan appro ached hi

m to discuss t he De par t ment’ s de mands t hat he le ave h is house. Juan told Sn

yde r C.A .T. ha d suf f ere d a he ad i njury bu t Ju an di d n ot kn o w h o w t he inju ry o cc ur r ed
. Ju an sa id if he did
no t le ave the h

ouse, the children

would be removed. Sn

yde r testifi ed that Juan told hi

m that Juan “was going to take his

cl ot hes out of the residence an d . . . put them i

n hi s car . . . [and] slee

p in t he car to make i

t look li ke he was n’t at the reside

nce.” Do na ld Cagle, who was eighteen at tim e of trial, worked with Vi

rgin ia for about three mont hs in 1999 and l

iv ed in t he T r ev ino ho me f

or ab out a month an d a ha l f when he ran aw ay f rom foster ca r e. Du r ing t ha t t ime, Ca gle said Juan stayed at the house as of ten as Cagl

e di d. Cagle

said, “They [Juan an d Virgi nia] made ma ny comm ents that they weren ’t supposed to be there. They were very sneaky.” Cagl e testif

ie d th at h e on l y h ea rd Vi rg i n i a te l l Juan to lea ve t he ho us e o nc e. Vir gin ia9

and J.L. weret ea sing Ju an , wh o su dd en ly t ur ne d o n V irg inia a s if he wa s g o ing t o hit he r . Ca gle tol d Juan t o st o p a nd Vir gin ia t o ld J ua n t ha t if he co uld no t t ak e a jo ke , he sho uld le ave. Cagl e testif ie d that there were ma ny tim es when Juan spent u nsupervised t im

e with Virgini

a’s older d aught er, J.L. On several occasions, t he police came to t he house an d J ua n hid in J. L. ’s r o o m o rin a c lo se t . Ca gle
sa id Juan’ s worker’s compensation cl ai ms were fraudul

ent, that he was not hurt and was ca pa bl e of lif t ingheavy o bject s. C agle s aid he t hou ght Jua n was a co n man. Cagle al so test if ie d that Juan br ag ge d t o him

ab o ut his sexu al relat ionships wit h wo men ot her t han Vir ginia, includ ing a sixt eenyear-ol d ne i ghbor. Cagle adm

itted that he had b een an

gry at the Trevi

nos, but denied that he was testi f y i ng a gai nst them f or reve nge . Juan tes ti f i ed ab out h i s d i sc ove ry of C.A.T.’s i

nj ury. He sa

id wh en h e pi cked her

up f rom Hi gh ts’ house on Friday , Novemb er 6, she was n ot cryi ng an d he di d not not ic e anything w ro ng wi th he r . Ju an sa id

he bec ame aw ar e o f C.A. T. ’s injury bet wee n abo ut 6: 00 a nd 7:00 that nigh

t when J.L. to ld h

im that C.A.T. “had a sof

t spot on her

head.” Juan

t est ifi ed t hat t he childr en we re alone in si de t he ho use for abo ut an ho ur t hat night wh i l e h e w asouts i dework

i ng on hi s car wi

th a fri end, butthat he superv

is ed them through a win

dow and “n

ever l eft thei r sigh t just about.” Juan

said he had a go od view o f the ro om whe re C. A.T . w as in her playpen.

Juan sa id h e d id n o t t ak e C . A. T . t o t he ho sp it al imme dia t ely beca use he did no t have tran sp ortati on and h e di d not t hi

nk sh e had a seri ous i nj ury . He w aite d fo r V irginia t o g et home a nd they broug ht C.A .T. t o a Luling ho spit al abo ut 9: 00 p .m. The hos pit al sent t hem home t hat night and they returned th e nex

t day but we re agai n sen t home. On Sun

day , Novemb er

9, Ju an an d V irg inia brought C.A.T. to Chi

ldren ’s Hospi

tal i n A ustin , where they

le arned sh

e had a skul

l f racture.10 Juan admit t ed s igning t he De par t ment s afet y plans re quir inghim to move ou t and ha ve no unsuperv

is ed contact with the chi

ldren . Juan

sa id he kn ew that hi s f

ai lure to compl

y c ould lead to further De pa rtm en t i n v ol v em en t. J ua n di d n ot re ca l l tel l i n g S n y der that h e i n ten de d to misl

ead t he Dep ar t ment in

to thin kin g he h ad m oved out o f the h

ouse. Juan sai

d he n ever took care o f the ch

il dren wh ile Vir gin ia

was at work, but admitted to bei ng i n the h ouse when s

he was n ot home
. Juan al so adm itted being wit h J.L . in violat ion o f a co ur t or der . Ju an de nied as king High ts to say C.A.T. had fal le n whi le in her care an

d deni ed tell in g her C.A.T. wa s not i

nj ured a t her h ouse. H e sa

i d D.T., Hig ht s, Ca gl e, an d a no t he rwit ne ss ha d n o t t es t ifie d t rut hfu lly.

Gwen Lop ez , a De pa rtm en t ca se wor ker, te sti f i ed h er f am i l y pr es er v ati on pl an wi th t he Trev i nos c onsi sted of thera py, paren tin g cl ass es, a nd h ome visi ts. Lopez had m

ore contact wi

th Vir gin ia t ha n w it h J ua n, pa r t ly be ca us e h e w as no t alw ays at t he ho me wh en Lo pe z v isit ed
. I n Ap r il 1999, Lopez in

vestigated whether Juan was there when Virgi nia was not present, maki

ng num erous ca lls t o t he ho me. Lo pe z s aid t ha t aft er so meo ne r ep ea t ed ly picke d up and hung u p t he t elepho ne wi thout spe aki

ng, s he wen t to t he hous e. No one

an swe red the door, butso meone pee ked ou t t he win dow. Lop ez

wai ted un ti l Vi rg i n i a retu rned , but V i

rg i n i a w oul d n ot let Lo pez enter the house. A fter Lo pez called t he po lice, V irginia ad mitt ed L op ez. Lo pez inter viewed t he neighbo rs a nd th e next day deci ded the chi ldren should be rem

oved becaus e she b elie

ved the saf

ety pl an ex cl udin g Juan had b een v

iolated. El l en Guck i an , a parent edu cato r for t he Lockhart scho ols, t est ifi ed t hat initially

t he Trevi nos partici pated in her g ro up mee t ings o nly spor adica lly , o fte n ar rivingla

te. She sai d that later they be cam e m ore coopera

tiv e an d attended m

ore r eg ula r ly . Guckian m ade several h

ome vi sits.11

Dur ingone visit, Virg inia was o n t he pho ne du ring mo st o f t he t ime a nd ap pe ar ed un int er es t ed in t alking with Guc

kia n. Juan wa s a tten ti v e to the chi

ldren . Guckian

said she di

d not have a great deal of ex peri ence ob serv

i ng th e Trev i nos, b ut s he t hou ght Virg inia was no t ver y engag ed w ith t he childre n. Guc kian sa id t he T re vinos ne ver acc ept ed t hat t hey ha d any respon sibil

ity for t he De pa rtm en t’s i n v ol v em en t wi th th e f am i l y an d of ten com pl ai n ed ab out th e D ep ar tmen t. Mary Van Di ggel e, a c ourt a

ppoi nte d spe ci al ad voc atean d gu ard i an ad l i tem f ort he ch ild ren , t es t ified t ha t she ha d b ee n inv o lve d w it h t he ca se sinc e la t e J un e 1 99 9. Va n D igg ele witne ssed several me etings between the chi ldren and the paren

ts after the chi ldren were in foster care. Sh e s aid init ially

t he chi ldren were “cl in gy” with J uan an d Virgi nia, but that t hey

no longe r seem ed traumatized

wh en the v i si ts were over. J.L . a ct ed like a mot her t o t he you nger childre n and Vir gin ia “was rather disassocia

ted from i nteraction wi

th her chi ldren . She m

ore o r les s sat back

and watched. And [J .L. ] as su

med , to a certain e xtent, the motheri

ng role.” Van

Digge le has obs erved the ch

il dren in thei r f oster home . She said they were outgo in

g and i nteracting n

ormal ly and di d not seem withdra wn o rsa d. T he ch ildr en pla yed o ut sid e a nd ha d fr ien ds in t he ne igh bo rho o d. C. A. T . is f ea rles s a n d “i n ten t on disc ov eri n g h er wor l d a t top s pe ed .”She is n

orm al i n al l as pe cts except f or sp ee ch , an d is un de r go ing sp ee ch t he r ap y. V an Dig ge le s aid t he t wo yo un ge st ch ildr en vie w t he ir foster family a s t he ir r ea l pa r en t s. Va n D ig ge le sa i d the Trev

i nos consistentl

y bl am e A .T. f or C.A.T .’s i njury. Base d on

her obs er vat ions o f the ch ildr en an d t he ir in t er ac t io ns w it h e ac h o t he r , t he ir foster parents, and Juan

and Virg inia, Va n Digge le rec ommende d t hat Jua n and V irginia’s r ight s be termi nated.12 Pa sto rBenj ami

n Smi th test if ied that Juan and Virgi

nia had been m

emb ers of First Baptist Church i

n Lockhart for alm

ost two ye ars. On occa sion, Virginia asked S mi th t o wa tch J. L. Sm i thsai d Vi rgin

ia deal s wi th J.L. in a typi cal mother/daughter way

and h e bel ie ves Vi rgin ia i s ca pa ble of

ca ri n g f or a n d p rote cti

n g h er ch i l dr en . H e d

i d, h owev er , s ay

th er e w as r o o m f

or im provemen t in Vi rgin ia ’s di sci pli ne. Tay l orSkaar, a counselor with a women ’s sh el ter , tes ti f i ed ab out h er wor k w i th V irg iniasi

nc e Octob er 199 9. Skaa

r sai d one of Vi rgi ni a’s maj or is sue s wa s her an

ger towa rd th e Dep ar t ment and a f

ormer therapi st. Skaar wat ched Vi rgin ia in teract with a Departmen

t caseworker and said t he caseworker was unpr ofe ssio nal. S kaa r be lieved Vir ginia’s ang er t ow ar d t he De par t ment was justif ied and sai

d Virgin ia h ad made considerable progress i n de al i n g w i th t ha t an ge r . Sk aa rsa id she had n

ever seen any one m ore commi

tt ed to co mpl

yi ng wi th Department requi

r em ents than Vi rg in ia
. As fa r as Skaar knew, Vi rgin ia attended all

cl asses or even

ts required of h

er. Skaar bel ie ved Vi rgi ni a w asca pa bl e of prote cti ng he r ch i l dre n, wa s “ ps y ch ol o gi ca lly s oun

d en oug h to provide good motheri

ng,” and h

ad “ex pressed deepca

ri ng f orher childre n.” Sk aar did no t believe Virg inia was co -d epe ndent on J uan.

Stanley Harlan provided f

am ily c ounseli

ng to the Trevinos at t he Department’s request f rom February through Octo ber 1999. Harl an testifi ed that Virgi

nia was depresse d; he

bel ie ved she had a l ong-term depressi

ve di sorder stemm

in g from low sel f-esteem an d a sense of wort hlessness. He s aid t he T re vino family was ver y engag ed in t he co unse ling, and Vir gin ia was cooperat iv

e even thoughshe dislike d bei

ng requi red to undergo therapy. Harl an said in itially Virgi nia seem ed t o ha ve so me amb iv alenc e abo ut Jua n’s involvement in C.A. T. ’s injury. S he did no t t hink he had hur t t he13

chi ld, b ut was open to t he possi

bi li ty that he m

igh t have. Harlan sai

d Virgi nia was ver y angr y and dis satisf ie d with the D epartment’s h

andl in g of the f am il y’ s case. Har lan tho ught Virg inia wou ld be minimally fun ct io na l an d a ble to care for the chi ldren . At the tim

e Harla n stoppedseei

ng Vi rgin ia , she wa s s t ill

depre sse d bu

t had made progress

i n b ei ng l ess rel i an t on Jua n. Virgi nia told Harlan

that she m is sed Juan but in dic ated that sh

e was com pl y i ng w i th the Depa rtme nt’s requi rem en ts. Harlan bel ie ved J uan and V irginia we re co -d epe ndent on e ach o t her . I n Apr il 1999 , H ar lan called t he Tr evino hom

e to spea k to Vi rgi ni a. Jua n a nsw er ed an d s aid he wa s w at ch ing t he ch ildr en wh ile Vir gin ia ma de a trip to wo rk. Harlan

then reported a p oss i

b l e s af ety pl an v i ol ati on to th e D ep ar

tm en t, as re qui red b y his con tract. Minn ie Mae Hudspeth b aby satthe Trevi

no chi ldren for about t hre e mont hs at t he end of 1998. She sai

d Juan never picke d up t he childr en and t he childre n wer e alwa ys in goo d co ndit ion. Huds peth said t he childr en we re glad t o s ee V irginia whe n she p icked t hem up a nd she w as af f ec ti on ate wi th t hem. Cind y Gray T idwell edu cat ed V irginia abo ut nut rit ion, child care, and stress manage ment for abo ut six mont hs an d t es t if i ed th at Vi rg i n i a w as coop erati

v e a n d s eemed

to as si m i l ate in form ation f rom the train

in g. Mari a Revas

bab ys at for C.A.T. for about three months up
un t il Ap r il 1999 an d te sti f i ed th at C .A .T. al

wa y s a pp ea re d h ea l th y , w el l f ed , c ared-f

or, a n d h appy to see Virg inia. Reva s also t est ifi ed t hat she had observ

ed the enti

re fam il y together bef

ore Novembe

r 19 98 , an d t ha t t he y we r e h ap py.

Virgini a’s o lde st da ug ht er , J .L ., t es t ifi e d that although Juan was not her bi

ologica l f athe r, she cal l ed h

i m “d ad.”J.L . d enied t hat she had b een al one i n the h ouse with Jua

n on the day be f ore t he De par t ment r emove d t he childr en. She sai d her grandm

ot her had b een there. Wh

en asked14

if she kn ewwhether Juan

was al so there, she ans

wered, “No, ma’ am .” J. L. sa i d J ua n n ev er ca me to the home when Virgi nia was not t here. She testif ie d that she was n

ot afrai d of Juan , he had n

ever hur t her, a nd s he had ne ver see n h i m hur t any of the other c

hi l dren
. Vir gin ia testifi ed that she loved her ch

il dren. She sai

d they were a nor

mal bu t not perfect famil y, and she never hur t t he chi ldren or saw Juan hurt them . Virgi nia said when

she arri ved ho me from

a week-l ong traini

ng ses si on on Novem

ber 6, Juan i

mm edi ately asked her to look at C.A.T .’s he ad . Sh

e f el t a s of t sp ot and a ske d her sist er t o d rive t hem to t he Lu ling hosp ital. The hospi talse nt t he m ho me a nd t he ne xt da y Vir gin ia went to wo rk. When

she got home that even

in g, C.A .T. see

med f i ne . She worked a

l l the n ex t day, l ea vi

ng i nstructi ons w

i th Juan that if C.A .T. worsened he sh o ul d c all V ir gi nia imme di at ely. When she g ot home a bou t 10: 00 p .m. , she deci ded to brin g C.A.T. back to the Luli ng hospital to ask for a CA T sc an . T he ho sp it al did the s can b

ut “didn’t kno w wha t t o d o w ith” C.A.T., so t he Trevi nos went hom

e agai n. On Mo nd ay, Vir gin ia a ga in had to work, and when s

he got home sh

e asked he

rs ist er t o dr ive t he m t o Ch ildr en ’s Ho sp it al in Austi n. Vi rgin ia said Juan took C.A.T. t o see two ot her doctor s durin g this tim e fram e. Virgi nia deni ed allowi ng Juan to be wi th the chi ldren when s he was not pr ese nt and deni ed le avi ng them with h im the day bef ore t hey were rem oved
. Sh e s aid t ha t da y she wo rke d u nt il about 2:00 p .m ., pi cked

up C.A .T. f

rom th e b aby si tter, and went h

ome to m ake di nn er a nd wai t f or t he ot her chi

ldren to get home f

rom sch ool; her m

ot her was v

is iti ng at t he t im e. A f

ter di nn er, Virgi nia l eft her m

ot her wi th the chi ldren and l eft to run an

er ra n d. J ua n , w h o st i l l h ad a key to t he house, wasnot ther

e wh en she lef t but ca me wh i l e sh e was gone . Wh

en Vi rgi ni a re turned, Gwen Lopez wa s w ai

ti ng outs i de . Vi

rgi ni a s ai d s he ref us ed to al l ow L ope z i

nto t he h ome b ecause h

er15

atto rney had i nstructed her not to speak to t he Departm ent. When

Lopez cal le d t he po lice and in si stedon enterin

g the home , Virgi

nia allowed

her i nsi de. The nex

t day, the Departmen

t removed the chi l dren
. Vir gin ia

test if ied that she had compl

ied wi th all of the Depart men

t’s requirements, including attend

i ng p are nt ing classe s, Alco holics Ano nymous mee t ings, and a nger manage ment t he r ap y. Virgi

nia testif ie d th at sh e tr

i ed to re sch ed

ul e two cl as se s s h e m i ss ed du e to c on f

l i cts wi th
a doc tor’ s a

ppoi ntm en t an d a j ob in terview, but her caseworker refus ed. Virgi nia said she n

ever saw Jua n hit D .T . w ith a s t ick, altho ugh s he did s ee him hit her leg wit h a f l y swa tter. Virg inia said she had not fil ed fo r d ivor ce o r st op ped see ing Jua n beca use she love s hi m;she di d not beli eve Juan had in jured C. A. T . Ho we ve r , she ag r ee d t ha t if only Jua n’s pa re nt al right s we re t er minated , she wo uld
move away

wh ere J uan could not f

i nd h er. Vi rgi ni a testif i ed that A.T. told a

doctor that C.A .T. was hurt when A .T. and J.T. were play in g, but a Department caseworker told A.T. to stop ly in g. The re was addi

tional confl icting testi

mony about whether

the Trevi nos all owe d J.L. to social iz e very la te at nigh

t with a m

uch ol de r girl

and wh et her Jua n pr ovid ed a lcoho l and pornogra phy to Donal d Cagl e wh

en Cagl e was a m i nor. DISCUSSI ON Juan ar gue s t hat t he De par t ment did no t pr ove how C. A.T .’s injury oc cur re d and that such a showi ng wasnecessary because o f the dissim il arity betwee n C.A.T. ’s and D.T .’s in juri es. He arg ues t ha t t he “[ D. T . ] fac t o r ” mu st be r emo ve d fr o m co nsid er at io n a nd t he ca se ev alu ated as a “strai ghtf orward acc ident al injury to a child ca se w ith no agg ra vat ing fact s.” Virg inia arg ues t hat t he record contains no evi

dence that

she or t he ch

il dren’s e nvi ronmen t endangered the ch

il dren and tha

t16

“no o ne ac t ua lly

testifi ed that they would be concern ed for the chi

ldren ’s saf

ety” i f they were returned to Virgi nia’s care. Vi

rgin ia al so argues that t he “re l ev an t tim e f ram e” was b ef

ore the c hi l dren were removed and becauseK.T . w as r emove d immediat ely after she w as bo rn, t her e wa s no ev i den ce to support t he termi

nation of Virgi nia’s ri ghts as to t hi s y

oungest child. Both Vir gin ia and Juan downpla y the evi dence supp ortin

g term i na tion . The y i gnore t he co nfli ct ingevidenc e as t o w het her Jua n was freq uent ly alone wit h t he childr en in violat ion o f the saf ety pl an, and wh

ether Juan told other

pe opl e th at h e i n ten de d to decei

ve the Departm

ent. They
a lso overl

oo k t est imony from exp er ienced Dep ar t ment p er so nnel who expr esse d co ncer n for t he chil dren’s well-being if left in

th e T re v i n os’ ca re , a n d C ag l e’ s te sti

mon y th at J ua n v i ol ate d th

e s af ety order wit h Virg inia’s kno wledg e and involvement , fr aud ulent ly obt ained w or ker ’s co mpensa t ion, and had a s ex ual relati onsh

i p wi th a s i xtee n-y ear-ol d ne i ghbor. D.T. testifi

ed that Juan onceba

nge d he r he ad on the f l oor until she pas sed

out. C.A .T. also suf fered h ead in jury , the cause of wh

ic h has not been

satisf actorily expl ai ned. Over ti

me , Juan off ered changi ng e xpl anati ons of

how the i nj ury mi ght have occurred and there was ev ide ncet hat he attempted t o c onvince C. A.T .’s babysitt er t o t ake t he bla me for the i nj ury. Departm

ent personnel testifi ed that Juan

had b een sl

ow to accept responsi

bi li ty f or D.T .’s earl

ie rinjuries. T he chil

dren’s guardian ad lit em te st ifi

ed t hat t he childr en we re flour ishing in fost er car e and re co mmended t hat t he Trevinos’ right s be t er minated . T her e wa s co nfli ct ing t est imony

as t o w het her t he Trevi

nos f oll owed thro ugh with education to im pro ve their parenting ski

ll s. T his is a cl

ose case. W

hi l e there i s evi denc e that the Trev

i nos are com pe ten t or “ good
eno ugh” pa r en t s, t he r e is also s uf f i ci en t ev i den ce to the contrary. The ev

ide nce an d in feren ces that17

ma y b e d ra wn f rom th at e v i den ce are s uf f i ci en t to sho w t hat Jua n enda nger ed t he chi ldren by hi s own con duct. Lik ew ise , t he ev ide nc e is su f f i ci en t to sh owVirgi nia should have been

aware that it was
uns afe t o p lace he r c hildren in Jua n’s ca re or t o a llow him to be i n th e h om e wi th t he m. T ha t Vir gin ia continue d to be i nvolv ed with Juan througho ut t heseproceedin gs and ref used to accept the

l i ke l i hood that Ju an seri ousl y i nj ured C .A.T. in

dic ates that she m

igh t in the f uture fail to take steps to prot ect t he childre n. V irginia’s a rg ument t hat there was no evi dence to support termi

nation of her
r ela t io nsh ip wi

th K .T. f ail s b eca use i t is not ne ces sary

f or the i nj uri ng c onduc

t to be di rected at K.T. to term i na te the p aren

t-chi l d rel ati onsh i p. See Boyd , 727 S. W.2d at 533 ; Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 325. Co nsider ingthe c onf

l i cti ng e vi den ce a nd l eav i ng m atters of cre di bi l i ty an d de mea nor to t he ju ry’s determi

nation, as we must, we cannot hold that t he j ury’s f in din gs that t he Trevin

os’ parental righ ts should b e termi

nated are s o ag ainst t he gr eat weight and p re po nder ance of t he evi dence as t o be cle ar ly

unjust. See Leal , 25 S.W .3d at 32 5. Li kewi se, tak i ng i nto acc ount f

actors such as the chi

ldren ’s n eeds, present and f

ut ure dang er s po sed by the ho me enviro nment, t he Trevinos’ parentin

g abi li tiesand programs ava

il abl e to t hem , and thei r acts or o mi

ssions di rected at t he ch i l dren , weca

nn ot hol d the f i nd i ng tha t term i na ti on i s i n th e c hi l dre n’ s b es t i nte res ts to b e un supported by

the e vi den ce. See D.O. , 8 51 S .W. 2d a t 355 -5 6. We ho ld t her e is clear and
co nvincing

evidenc e s uffic ie n

t to s uppor

t ter m i n ati on un der s ecti on s 1 61 .00 1( 1) (D ) or (E) a n d to supp ort a fi

ndi ng that such t ermi

nation i s in

the chil dren’s best

i ntere sts. See Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 325. We overrule Vi

rgin ia ’s second a

nd thi rd points of error and Juan ’s thi rd iss ue.18 Having fo un d s uffic ien t ev ide nc e t o su pp o r t t er min ati on und er sections 161.001(1)(D)
or(E), we need not add ress the Trevinos’ attacks on se cti on 161 .001(1 )(O). See In re M.C .M. , 57 S.W.3d at 32. MISTRIAL

Vir gin ia also co nt ends t he di strict courterred in refusi ng he r requests for a mi

strial due to questions asked about Juan’s fri en d Osc ar Do ria, Do ria’s co nvictio n for indece ncy with a chi ld, and th e p oss i

b l e adop ti on

of th e ch i l dr en . In

i ti al l y , w e n ote that although Vi

rgin ia contends that t he Depa rtm en t “ vi ol ate d the l

i m i ne reg ard i ng Os ca r Dor i a on mor e t han o ne oc cas ion, ” and “went beyond the C ourt’s ru

l i ng on the M otion

i n Li m i ne i n a ski ng w hether the ch

i l dren were adoptab l e,” a review of the m

ot ion s hows that nei

ther subject was bar red by the distr ict co urt ’s order in l im in e. Nowheredoes the motion ref er to Do r ia b y name , an d n o ne o f t he limit s s et fo r t h in t he mo t io n a pp ly to his con vi cti on f or in dece ncy wi th a chi l d. Fu rther , the d

i str i ct c our t denied Virgi nia’s request to in cl ude in t he mo t io n in

lim ine “[a] ny t es t imo ny o f t he pr o po se d a do pt io n o f t he ch ildr en . ” W e w ill reviewwhet her t he dist rict co ur t sho uld have gr ant ed V irgini a’ s mo t io ns f or a m i stri al ap art f rom motion in li mi ne considerations. Juan testifi ed that D oria was a fri end of his. The Departmen t asked whether Doria was in prison, an

d Juan said he did no t kno w. Virg inia object ed t hat t he qu est ion wa s irr elevant , a nd t he dis trict court overruled h

er objec tion. Doria’s

nam e cam e up agai n, and the De

partment asked: A: Did yo u k no w t ha t Os ca rDo r ia w as co nvi ct ed o f ind ec en cy — Jua n: Ob

j ection, Your H onor.19

Q: — with a

chi ld? The C our t: Su sta i n ed . I’ l l ask th e j ur y to disreg ard th

at l ast com men t. Fin ally, the Departmen

t asked Deni se Ram irez

who else w as a t Children’ s Ho spit al when s he in terviewe d Virgi nia. Ram irez a nswered, “Well, Mrs . V irginia Tr evino a rr ived wit h Osc ar Do ria and hi s wi fe.” Vi

rgin ia move d for a m

is trial , arguin

g that t he Departm

ent kept br ing ing up Do r ia inan attempt to tain

t the j ury . The

di strict courtdenied t he mot ion, bu t ad moni sh ed the Depa rtm en t not t o ment ion Do ria ag ain: “I ’m just informing co unse l that if i t kee ps c oming up after

we’ve go t t he stin k in the jury , I’m goi ng to be considerin

g a m is trial .” As for t est imony reg ar ding the children’s ado pt ion, St epha nie Ho fferek , a Dep ar t ment supervisor, was asked about the Department’s pl ans f or t he ch il dren sh oul d th e T re v i n os’ ri gh ts be termi nated. Hof

f ere k s tate d that the D ep artm en t i nte nd ed f orthe childr en to be adopted. When asked, she testif

ie d that the children were ad opt able; Vi rginia objected imm

ediately af ter Hofferek’s
answer and t he dist rict co ur t sus t ained t he obje ction. Wh en the Departm

ent asked Hoff

erek whether t he Dep ar t ment would attempt to keep the chi l dren together, Vi

rgi ni a obj ected a

nd th e di strict court sus t ained he r o bject ion. Virg inia moved fo r a mistr ial, saying The Court ’s rul

in g on the Motion i

n Li mi ne was t hat t hey co uld as k wha t t he plans were. T he an sw er wa s s up po se d t o be ad o pt io nand mo ve o n. N ot go into t he details. The [Departmen

t] has crossed

an d v io lat ed t ha t o r de rfo r cin g me to obje ct in f ront of the j ury and also f orci ng — al l owi ng th e j ury to hear that t hei r opini on was that these childre n ar e ad op t able. No w, we’ve op ened t his who le can o f wo rms and these chi ldren ma y n ot be adoptable. T he dis t r ict co ur t o ve rrule d V irg inia’ s r eq ue st fo ra mis t r ial.20 A tr ial cou rt ’s deci si on on a m

ot ion f or mi strial is review ed fo r a n abus e o f discr et ion. Van Allen v. Blackledge , 35 S.W.3d 61, 63 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 2000 , pet. den

i ed); Pitman v. Lightfoot , 937 S.W .2d 496 , 5 37 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 1996, writ deni

ed). A trial courtab us es i ts d i scre ti on wh en i t acts un re as on ab l y or a rb i tra ri l y , w i th out ref eren ce to any guiding pri nc i ples. Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller , 806 S.W .2d 223 , 226 (Tex. 19 91). Vir gin ia co mplains of t hre e qu est ions asked duri ng a week-l

ong trial with m ore t han t went y-fivewitnesses. Th e di stri ct c ourt s us tai ne d V i rgi ni a’ s ob j ec ti ons an d i ns tructed the j ury not to consi der th e q ue sti on regar di ng D oria ’sconv

i cti on f or in dece ncy wi th a chi l d. A trial

court has t he discr et ion t o s o a dmo nish the jury in li eu o f declar ing a mistr ial, and here the adm onis hm ent cured any possi bl e error i n the aski ng of the q ues tion
. See Weidner v. Sanchez, 1 4 S .W. 3d 3 53, 365 (T ex. App.—Houston [14t h Di st.] 2000, no pet .). Based on this record, we cannot hold thatthe dis trict courtab us ed it s d isc r et io n in re fusing t o g ra nt Virg inia a mistrial. We ove rr ule Vir ginia’s fo ur t h po int of e rr or and a ffi

rm t he de cr ee o f te rminat ion.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: January

10, 200221

Do No t Publis

h