See T ex. Fam . Code A nn. § 1 09. 002 (d) (Ve rnon 2 002 ); T ex. R. App . P. 9.8 (b)(1). 1 NO. 07-08 -008 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 C JAN UA RY

13, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE INT EREST OF R.A., JR., M.A., R.A., II I, A.A ., AND M.A, CHILDREN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 99 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 533,896 ; H ON ORABLE W ILLIA M SOW DE R, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, R. A., i s t he father of f ive ch ild ren, t hree boy s, R. A., Jr ., R. A., III , and 1 A. A. , a n d two girl s, M.A .# 1 an d M.A .# 2 , e a ch of wh o m a re t h e s u bje ctof th is p ro ce e d in g. On J anuar

y 31, 2008, the tr ial courtentered an order termi nati ng R.A.’ s pare ntal rig hts as to t he tw o g ir ls an d a p p o int ing the Dep artment of Fami ly and Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es (h erein after the “ Dep artment” ) and t he In ter v enors, J.G . and A.G ., (h erein after the2

“I nter v enors” ) as Joi nt M anag ing Con ser v ators of bo th g ir ls . As to the three boy s, the o rd er further appoi nted the D epar

tment as the S ole M anag ing C onser v ator , di d notappoi nt R .A. as a Possesso ry

Conservator, and den ied R.A. a ny posse ssion or acce ss to the boys. Presen ting tw o issues, R . A . app eals th at orde r maint aining (1) Intervenors’ Pet ition in Inter vent ion for C onser vato rship shou ld have bee n dism issed an d (2) the In tervenors lac ked sta ndi ng as to his olde st d a u g hter bec ause she had onl y been in thei r home for thirty- nine days w hen they filed their F ir st Supplem ent a l Pe titi on i n Inter vent ion for Conse rvatorship . W e affi r m. Back ground Facts R. A. a nd T.J .P. w ere mar ri ed for nin e y ears a nd are the parents of the fiv e c hil dren the s ubj ectof thi s p ro ceedi ng . In F ebr uar y of 2006, after R.A. wa s in carcerated for domest icv iol ence commi tted ag ain st T.J.P ., the Dep artment ini ti ated an inv est ig ati on i nto the c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the chi ldren. Later that y ear , t he D epar tment dis cov ered that T.J.P . had a dr ug probl em and remov ed al l fiv e chil dren f ro m her care. The chi ldren w ere tak en i nto t he D epar tment’ s care becau se nei ther T.J.P . nor R. A. had rela ti v es w ho w ere s uit abl e c andi dates to care for the ch ild re n. The chi ldren w ere pl aced in different foste r hom es. M.A.#2 , the y oun gest dau ght e r, wa s placed in the foste r care of the In tervenors. M. A.#1, the old er daug hter , w as pla ced in the foster ca re of the I nter

v enors a t a lat er

date .3

The boy s, w ho w ere ag g re ss iv e, de fiant, and ex per ien ced behav ioral probl ems, re mained in the D epar

tment’ s c are. Or ig ina ll y , t he D epar

tment filed su itse eki ng co nser v atorshi p of

t h e c hil dren and ter minat ion of R. A. a nd T.J .P.’ s p arental r ig hts as to all t hei r chi ldren. The De par tment later no nsuite d the termin ation procee ding as to the three b oys and instea d sou ght only to be appoi nted per manent s ole manag ing co nser v ator of the b oy s. T.J. P. s igned an aff ida v itof re li nq uis hment as to her tw o daug hters s o the y

co uld be adopted by

thei r foster parents , w ho had by

then i nter

v ened i n the ter minat ion su it . Follow ing presenta tion o f ev iden ce and testim ony at the f inal he aring, the trial court ordered th at, as to t he g ir ls , bot h pare n ts ’ p a rental r ig hts be t er minat ed and the Dep artment and Inter

v enors be appointe d joi nt manag ing conser v ators. T he c our

t furt her ordered th at, as to the three boy s, the Dep artment w as appoi nted as thei r sol e manag ing cons er v ator , T.J .P. w as appoi nted poss ess or y co nser v ator , and R .A. w as deni ed any ty pe of conse rv ato rship, po ssession , or access. Discus sion By his f irst issue, R.A. ma intain s thatthe In tervenors’ Petiti on i n Inte rv enti on fo r Con ser vator shi p shoul d hav e been di smi ss ed becaus e (1) the peti ti on did not al leg e any fa c t s t o su p p o rtst a n d in g, a n d ( 2 ) “s a t is fa c t o ry p ro o f” t o a u t h o ri ze t h e c o u rtt o gra n tle a ve to i nter v ene w as not recei v ed by the tr ial co urt unt il the final hearing, i n contrav enti on ofSee In re C.M.C. , 192 S.W .3d 8 66, 8 72 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) 2 4 the p ro v is ion s o f § 102.004 (b ) of th e T e xas F a mil y C ode. By

hi s s econd i ss ue R .A. ma intain s the In tervenors lacked stan ding as to his olde st dau ghter beca use sh e ha d on ly bee n in the ir home for t hirty -nine days when the y f iled the ir

Fir st Sup plemental Pe tition in Inte rventio n for Conse rvatorship and therefore t hey lac ked “s ubst anti al pastco ntac t” w it h 2 her. T he Dep artm enta sserts tha t R.A. lacks stan ding to assert his con ten tions b ecau se he does not cont estter minat ion of his parental r ig hts . W e ag re e w it h the D epar tment. “[A]n o rder term inatin g the paren t-child relation ship divests the p aren t and the child of all l eg al ri g hts and duti es w it h respect t o e a ch o th er ,” ex ceptfor t he c hil d’s r ig ht t o inh er it . See Tex . Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.206 (b ) (V er non Supp. 2008) . By faili ng to appeal the tr ial co urt’ s t er minat ion findi ng s, R. A. i s b ound by them. The c onseq uence of not chal len g ing the ter minat ion of his parental r ig hts i s t hat R .A. became a former parent w it h no l eg al ri g hts w it h respect t o M .A.# 1 and M.A. # 2 . T h e refore, h e has no s tandi ng to compl ain of the fost er

parents ’ int er

v enti on i n the ter minat ion su it . See In r e S. M. C. and D.D.C. , N o. 07 -0 4- 00429- CV , 200 5 W L 44153 8, at*1 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Feb . 25, 2005, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g thatmother w ho di d notappeal ter minat ion findi ng s l ack ed s tandi ng t o a ppeal co nser v atorshi p i ss ues) . See also In re H.M.M. , 230 S.W .3d 2 04, 204- 05 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) (h old ing that mother

di d nothav e sta ndi ng to appeal post -t er minat ion cus tody deci si on w hen s he did not appeal the ter minat ion of her parental r ig hts ).5

Mo re ov er , i rrespecti v e of the Inter v enors’ r ig ht t o i nter

v ene i nto t his proceed ing , t he tr ial co urt has auth or ity to appoi nt a sui tabl e, c ompetentadul t as manag ing co nser v ator of a c hil d upon te rminati on of the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p. See Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 161.207 (a ) (V er non 200 2) . The ev ide nce present ed demons trated that the foster parents we re s u it a b le , c o m p e t e n t , a n d t h a tM . A . # 1 a n d M . A . # 2 h a d b o n d e d wit h t h e m . R. A . ’s two is sues are ov er ru led . Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er i s a ff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice