To protec t t he pare nts ’ and c hil dren’ s p ri v acy , w e refer t o the parents and the 1 chi ldren by

thei r ini ti als
. See Te x . Fam . Code Ann. § 109 .00 2(d) (Vernon 200 2), T ex. R
. App . P. 9.8 (b)(1). The parental rig hts of

B.L.R .P.’ s mother

w ere also ter minat ed, b ut no appeal from 2 that deci si on w as filed
. NO. 07-07 -050 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 OC TOBER16, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF B.L. R. P., A C HI LD

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 O F RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 469 0- L1; H ON ORABLE JAM ES W . AN DE RS ON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , W .B., brings this app eal challenging the trial court’s order term inatin g his 1 pare nta l ri ghts to his ch il d , B .L.R.P . and app ointin g App ellee, the Dep artm entof Family and Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es, as manag ing co nser v ator. By th re e poi nts of er ro r, W .B.

22

maint ain s t he ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o suppor

t the tri al cour

t’ s t er minat ion order and findi ng s t hat ( 1) ter minat ion is in the c hil d’s bes t i nterest ; ( 2) he fai led to ti mely fil e an admis si on of pater nity

or to file a count ercl aim for pat er nity ; and ( 3) he fai led to compl y w it h prov is ion s o f a cour

t order thatsp e cif ica llyes tabl is hed t he acti ons neces sar y for h im t o obtai n retur n of the chi ld w ho had been i n the conser v atorshi p of

the Dep artment for not les s t han ni ne month s a s a resul t of the chi ld’ s re mov al from the p arent u nder C hapter 262 for abus e or

neg lect of the chi ld. W e rev erse and remand.

St and ard o f Rev iewin T erm in at io n Cas es In proc e e d in gs to te rmina te th e pa rent-child relat ionsh ip, the petitio ner m ust e s t a b li s h o n e o r m o re a c t s o r o m is s io n s e n u m e ra t e d b y st a t u t e a n d m u s ta d d it io n a ll y p ro ve t h a tt e rm in a t io n o f

t h e p a re n t -c h il d re la t io n s h ip is in t h e b e s tin t e re s to f t h e ch il d
. T e x. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001 (Ver non Supp. 2008)
. Both ele ments must be es tabl is hed and proof of one ele ment does not re li ev e the peti ti oner of t he burden of prov ing the o ther
. See Ho lle y v. A da ms , 544 S.W .2d 367, 370 (Tex . 1976). Be caus e ter minat ion of parental r ig hts is of such w eig ht an d g ra v ity , due proces s req uires the p eti ti oner to jus ti fy ter minat ion by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce. § 161.001 ; In In terest of G.M. , 5 9 6 S
. W
. 2 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 7 (T e x. 198 0). Clear and con v incing ev iden ce is t h a tm e asure or degree of proof w hich w ill produce i n the m in d o f t h e t rie r of facta fir m bel ief or co nv icti on as to the t ru th of the all eg ati ons soug ht t o be est abl is hed. In r e C . H., 8 9 S
. W
. 3 d 1 7 , 2 5 -2 6 (T e x. 2 0 0 2 ); T e x. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 10 1.007 (V er non 200 2)
.See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161 .00 2(b)(1) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). 3 See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161 .00 1(O) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). 4 3 Proce dural Back ground The Dep artment or ig ina ll y filed for ter minat ion of paren tal r ig hts ag ain st an al leg ed fath er othe r than W .B. on June 2 1, 20 06. Tem pora ry orders, w hich includ ed co mp liance wit h a fa m il y se rvi c e p la n , we re e n t e re d a ga in s tt h e f ir s ta ll e ge d fa t h e r. W
. B
. wa s sh o wn to be B.L .R .P.’ s father after a pate rn it y t e st w as admini ste re d on Oct ober 30, 2006. Thereafter , on September 10, 2007, the D epar

tment amended it s peti ti on to ad d W .B. as the father . The D epar tment soug ht t er minat ion of W .B.’ s p arental ri ght s o n s ev eral g ro unds; how ev er , the tr ial cour t’ s ter minat ion order w as based on onl y tw o g ro unds: ( 1) the fai lure of W .B. to respon d, after bei ng se rv ed w it h c it ati on, b y ti mely fil ing an a dmis si on of pate rnityor by

f iling a cou nte rclaim for pat ernity und er Chap ter 160 , and (2) the failure 3 of W .B. to c omply

w it h the prov is ion s o f a cour t order thats p e cif ic all y

es tabl is hed t he act ion s n eces sar

y for W .B. to obtai n the re tur n of B .L.R .P. w ho had been i n the per manent o r t e m p o ra ry m a n a gi n g c o n s e rva t o rs h ip o f t h e De p a rt m e n to f

Fa m il y a n d P ro t e c t i ve Ser v ic es for not les s than nin e months as a re sul t of t he chi ld’ s re mov al from th e pa re nt under C hapter 262 for th e abus e or

neg lect of the chi ld. 4 In its origi nal brief, the Dep artm entcand idly conce ded thattermin ation on the f irst gro u n d , t h a tW
. B
. fa il e d t o f il e a n a d m is s io n o f p a t e r n i t y o r a co u n t e rc la im fo r p a t e rn it y,Ex parte Harri s, 649 S.W .2d 389 , 391 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 1983 , no pe t.). 5 4 w as er ro neous . Therefore, t he only remain ing ground t o s uppor t t he order

of ter minat ion w as the s econd g ro und, the a ll eg ed fail ure to compl y w it h a c our

t- ordered s er

v ic e pl an. T he reco rd esta blishes that W .B. sig ned the Depa rtme nt’s serv ice plan on Ja nua ry 5, 20 07. The record doe s not, howev er, cont ain a w ritten orde r requiring W .B. to comp ly w it h that ser

v ic e pla n. Al thoug h W .B. did appear at a per manency hear ing hel d on May 29, 2 007, the record does not cont ain a transc ri pti on of thathear ing
. Therefore, w e c an onl y co ncl ude t hat t here i s n o c our t order thatsp eci fical ly

es tab lis hes the a cti ons neces sar

y for W .B. to ob tai n the retur n of the chi ld. By i ts suppl emental bri ef, the D epar tment cont ends that W .B. faile d to preser v e tha t is sue and al thoug h the record does not est abl is h tha t t he s er v ic e pl a n wa s a d o p te d by orde r of the trial court, W .B. ha s w aived the issue by failing to m ake a n objection or assert the c omplai nt i n hi s o ri g ina l br ief. The Dep artment further cont ends that it is undi sput ed that W .B. did not co m p le te the req uirements of the s er v ic e pl an. In respon se, W .B. cont ends that ter minat ion of his parental r ig hts on t he bas is of failu re to compl y w it h a nonex is tent cour

t order“ f lie s in the face of common s ense and c onv enti on.” W .B. ackno w ledges tha t no case on po int w as foun d bu t presen ts several analogou s situatio ns, to- w it : ( 1) holding an o bli g or i n c ontempt for fail ure to pay ch il d s uppor

t t hat w as nev er re duced to w ri tten order , and (2 ) re v oki ng com m u n ity su per v is ion w hen an order 5 cont ain ing the ter ms and condit ion s thereof w as nev er sig ned by

the tr ial co urt. W .B. thenW e also no te th at W .B.’s factu al suf f iciency argume nt w as prese rv ed b y his timely 6 f iled Sta tem entof

Points f iled in the trial court in accorda nce wi th § 26 3.4 05(i) of the Fam ily Cod e. 5 answ ers t he D epar

tment’ s p rese rvation of error i ss ue by referenc ing R ule 38.1 (e ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appella te Proc edure w hic h prov ide s t hat a n i ss ue w il l be treated as cov er ing ev er

y subs idi ar

y q uest ion thati s fai rl y i ncl uded. W e beg in our anal y si s b y address ing the preser

v ati on of er ro r is sue.

Pres erv ation of Error Poi nts of er ro r are to be cons tr ued “l ibe ra ll y in order to adj udi cat e j ust ly , fair ly and equitab ly the rights of

the litigants.” See Wil li am s v . Kh ala f , 8 0 2 S
. W
. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 8 (T e x. 1990)
. See a lso In re M. N. , No. 07- 0698, 2008 W L 3991189, at *1 ( Tex . Au g . 29, 2008) (a ppl y ing Rule 55.2(f), the Tex as Supreme Cour t’ s count er par

t to Rule 38.1(e) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , i n l ibe ra ll y co nst ru ing an a rg ument)
. W .B. arg ues that the a bsenc e of a c our t order req uir ing hi m to c omply w it h the Depa rtme nt’s servi ce plan per § 16 1.0 01(1 )(O) of the Fam ily

Code is ano the r fa cet of his factu al suf

f iciency argume nt. W e agree an d con clude thatthe arg u m e n tr a ise d in his suppl emental br ief i s p re ser v ed for re v iew

by thi s C our

t. 66 Req ui rem ento f a C ou rtOr der Sect ion 161. 001( 1) (O ) prov ide s t hat t he tr ial co urt may order ter minat ion of the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i f the c our t finds by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the p arent has: faile d to compl y w it h the prov is ion s o f a court order t h a t specif ically est abl is hed t he acti ons neces sar y for t he parent t o ob tai n the retur n of the chi ld w ho has been in the p er manent o r temporar y manag ing cons er v atorshi p of the Dep artment of Fami ly and Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es for not les s t han ni ne month s a s a resul t of the chi ld’ s remov al f ro m t he parent under C hapter 262 for th e abus e or

neg lect of the chi ld. (Emp hasis ad ded ). An ord er is def ined a s “a m and ate ; precep t; com ma nd o r direction au tho ritativ ely g iv en; r ule or

reg ula ti on.” [C it ati on omi tted]
. “D irect ion of c our t or jud g e made or

ente re d i n w r i ti ng , an d no t i nc l ud ed i n a j ud g me nt , w hi c h de te r mi ne s s om e po i nt or d i rects s om e step in the proce edin gs.” See Black’ s Law Dictionary

109 6 (6th e d. 19 90). The natural ri g ht ex is ti ng betw een parents and thei r chil d re n i s o f const it uti onal dimens ion
. See Holick v. Sm it h , 6 8 5 S
. W
. 2 d 1 8 , 2 0 (T e x. 1 9 8 5 )
. C o n s e qu e n t ly, ter minat ion proceed ing s must be s tr ictl y sc ru ti niz ed. In In terest of G. M. , 596 S.W .2d a t 846. In In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d 256, 284 (Tex
. 2002) , the parents arg ued t hat t er minat ion for failu re t o c o m p ly

w ith trial court orde rs delinea ting w hatthey must do to have the ir7

chi ldren retur ned w as eq uiv ale nt t o c ri minal contempt. In addre ss ing thei r compl ain t, the Cou rtnote d tha t t he “ Leg is lat ure has sp eci fical ly prov ide d i n subs ect ion 161. 001( 1) (O ) that failu re to compl y

w it h co ur

t or der s l ik e tho se is sued in thi

s c ase is g ro unds for te rmi nati on.” (E mphasi s a dded)
. Beca use the re a re n o court orde rs spe cif ically e stab lishing th e action s nece ssary for W .B. to ob tai n the retur n of the chi ld, w ri tten or othe rw is e, t he Departmentfail ed to est abl is h by

cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce any g ro unds enumerated under subsecti on ( 1) o f § 1 6 1 .00 1 to sup port te rmina tion o f W .B.’s pa renta l ri ghts to B.L .R.P. Strictly scrutinizi ng the un derl yin g proce edin gs, w e de cline to con don e term inatio n of W .B.’s parental r ig hts on t he bas is of a v iol ati on of a c our t order that did not ex is t. Point of error three i n W .B.’ s o ri g ina l br ief and is sue one i n hi s s uppl emental br ief are s ust ain ed. Conse quently, the trial court’s term inatio n orde r is rev ersed and t h e c a use is rema nde d to th e trial court for f urthe r proceed ings.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice