IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00080-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF

C.M., J.G., AND A.G., CHILDREN

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-1457-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Theresa G. appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental 

rights to her three children, C.M., J.G., and A.G. The trial court entered a judgment of 

termination based upon a jury verdict. The jury charge set out three grounds for 

terminating Theresa’s parental rights (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the 

children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the children (2) 

engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in 

conduct that endangers the children, and (3) failure to comply with a court order. TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (1) (D) (E) (O) (West Supp. 2012). The jury found by clear 

and convincing evidence that one or more of the alleged grounds for termination was 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 2

established and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the 

trial court’s judgment terminating Theresa’s parental rights to C.M., J.G., and A.G.

Standard of Review

In three issues Theresa argues that the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to support the jury’s findings on each of the three grounds for termination. 

Only one predicate act under section 161.001(1) is necessary to support a judgment of 

termination in addition to the required finding that termination is in the child's best 

interest. In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex.2003). In conducting a legal sufficiency 

review in a parental termination case:

[A] court should look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed 

a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. To give appropriate 

deference to the factfinder's conclusion and the role of a court conducting 

a legal sufficiency review, looking at the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court must assume that 

the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable 

factfinder could do so. A corollary to this requirement is that a court 

should disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have 

disbelieved or found to be incredible. This does not mean that a court 

must disregard all evidence that does not support the finding. 

Disregarding undisputed facts that do not support the finding could skew 

the analysis of whether there is clear and convincing evidence. In re J.P.B., 

180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.2005) (per curiam) (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 

256, 266 (Tex.2002)) (emphasis in J.P.B.).

In a factual sufficiency review,

[A] court of appeals must give due consideration to evidence that the 

factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.... [T]he 

inquiry must be "whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could 

reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State's 

allegations." A court of appeals should consider whether disputed 

evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved that 

disputed evidence in favor of its finding. If, in light of the entire record, 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 3

the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited 

in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not 

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is 

factually insufficient.

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266-67 (Tex.2002) (quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 

(Tex.2002)) (internal footnotes omitted) (alterations added).

Facts

Theresa lived with her husband, Tony,1 and their children J.G. and A.G. 

Theresa’s daughter, C.M.2 also lived in the home. The Texas Department of Family and 

Protective Services received a referral alleging sexual abuse of C.M., who was five 

years-old at the time, by her step-father, Tony. C.M. was staying with Richard, her 

biological father, and she told another relative that it “burned when she went to go pee 

pee” and that Tony “touched her between her legs and used his two fingers.” Richard 

reported the incident to the police, and the police made the referral to the Department. 

Rachel Richardson, with the Department, testified at trial that after receiving the 

referral, she met with C.M. and that C.M. stated that Tony touched her private area 

with “two hands.” Richardson then arranged a forensic interview of C.M. Richardson 

further testified that she met with Theresa concerning the allegations. Theresa stated 

that she did not believe C.M. was telling the truth. Theresa also said that C.M. had 

previously told her she had pain in her private area. Theresa put “rash cream” on 

C.M.’s private area, but did not take her to the doctor. Richardson also spoke with the 

 

1 Tony is also referred to as Jose in the record.

2 C.M.’s father, Richard is not a party to this appeal. Tony, the father of J.G. and A.G. is also not a party to 

this appeal. 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 4

principal at C.M.’s school. Theresa had told the principal that she believed Tony over 

her daughter.

Richardson testified that the three children were initially placed with a family 

friend, Eliza Chaves. Theresa was allowed to visit the children with supervision by 

Chaves. During one of the visits, Theresa and her grandmother tried to get C.M. to 

recant the allegation by telling C.M. that Tony and Theresa would both go to jail. C.M. 

became upset and started crying. After that visit, Chaves stated that she could no 

longer care for the children. Richardson testified that after that visit, she believed the 

children were in immediate danger. The children were then removed and placed in 

foster care.

Dr. Ann Sims testified that she examined C.M. and that C.M. said that Tony hit 

her and Theresa. C.M. also told Dr. Sims that Tony put his hand inside of her “coniche” 

which was the word C.M. used to refer to her front private area. C.M. held up her 

finger to demonstrate to Dr. Sims how Tony touched her “coniche,” and C.M. told Dr. 

Sims it hurt when he touched her. Dr. Sims further testified that C.M. said Tony took 

all of her clothes off and then took pictures of her. Dr. Sims stated that the physical 

exam of C.M. was consistent with the outcry.

Dr. Sims also testified that she examined J.G., who was two years-old at the time. 

J.G. was not able to talk to Dr. Sims, but she did interact and engage with the doctor. 

Dr. Sims would call out a body part, and J.G. would point to that body part. When Dr. 

Sims said “coniche,” J.G. pointed to her front private area. Dr. Sims stated that J.G. was 

a happy and smiling child. However, when Dr. Sims removed J.G.’s diaper for the 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 5

genital exam, she was “a totally different child.” Dr. Sims testified that the smile 

disappeared and J.G. never squirmed or moved. J.G.’s legs became “flaccid” and she 

spread her legs apart after Dr. Sims removed the diaper. J.G.’s behavior caused Dr. 

Sims to be concerned that J.G. had suffered abuse.

Detective Ann Cyr, with the Waco Police Department, testified that she 

investigated the criminal proceeding involving C.M. and J.G. Tony was convicted of 

aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child as a result of that 

criminal proceeding. Detective Cyr testified that Theresa told her “she refuses to 

believe that it [abuse] happened.”

Theresa testified at trial that she was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Theresa 

was molested at the age of six, and the abuse continued until she was eighteen. Theresa 

admitted that she told Richardson she did not believe C.M. and that she told the 

principal she did not believe C.M. The service plan for Theresa provided that she was 

to sever ties with Tony. Theresa testified at trial that she continued to write letters to 

Tony and that she went to the jail where Tony was being held, but she waited in the 

parking lot while her cousin went in to see Tony. Theresa admitted that she sent 

messages to Tony through her cousin that she loved Tony, but she could not come in 

because of the Department. She also sent a message that the Department could not 

keep her from Tony.

Section 161.001 (E) of the Texas Family Code allows termination of the parentchild relationship if the parent, “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with 

persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 6

of the child.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 161.001 (E) (West Supp. 2012). "Endanger" means 

"to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize." Texas Department of Human Services . v. Boyd, 

727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987). It is beyond question that sexual abuse is conduct that 

endangers a child's physical or emotional well-being. See In re King, 15 S.W.3d 272, 276 

(Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. denied). Parental knowledge that an actual offense 

has occurred is not necessary; it is sufficient that the parent was aware of the potential 

for danger and disregarded that risk. See In re Tidwell, 35 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2000, no pet.).

Theresa refused to believe the allegations of sexual abuse against Tony. She 

called C.M. a liar and made C.M. cry while trying to get her to recant the allegation of 

abuse. Richardson testified that Theresa’s behavior was emotionally abusive. There 

was evidence presented at trial that Theresa was aware Tony took inappropriate 

pictures of C.M.

Theresa continued to have contact with Tony, and she showed no ability to be 

able to protect the children from abuse. Detective Cyr testified that Theresa told 

inconsistent stories during the criminal investigation. Detective Cyr believed that 

Theresa was not protective of her kids, but was protecting Tony. 

Dr. James Shinder, a psychologist, testified that Theresa “has dealt with more 

tragedy, trauma and disaster than any person should ever have to deal with in three 

lifetimes.” Dr. Shinder explained in detail Theresa’s past sexual abuse and how she 

continues to get involved with persons who engage in sexual abuse. Dr. Shinder 
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 7

testified that “She has so many problems that I had – I ultimately had to conclude that it 

is not possible for her to be viewed as an independent parental resource.”

Dr. William Lee Carter, a psychologist, reviewed the psychological evaluation of 

Theresa. Dr. Carter testified that Theresa’s testing showed “considerable disturbance 

and disruption in her emotional functioning.” Dr. Carter testified that it appeared that 

Theresa was aware that Tony sexually abused the children because C.M. reported that 

her mom saw Tony touching J.G. and said “get out of my baby.”

After reviewing all of the evidence, we find that a reasonable finder of fact could 

have formed a firm belief or conviction that Theresa endangered the physical or 

emotional well-being of the children TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(E) (West Supp. 

2012). Theresa was not supportive of C.M. as a sexual abuse victim and did not believe 

that sexual abuse of C.M. or J.G. occurred. See K.M. v. Texas Dept. of Family and 

Protective Services, 388 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.). Theresa was 

emotionally abusive in trying to get C.M. to recant the allegation of abuse. Theresa was 

also unable to adequately protect the children from abuse. The evidence is legally and 

factually sufficient to support the finding that Theresa endangered the physical or 

emotional well-being of the children. We overrule the second issue. There is no 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that termination was 

in the best interest of the children. Because the evidence is sufficient to support one 

ground of termination under TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (1), we need not address

the first and third issues.
In the Interest of C.M., J.G., and A.G., Children Page 8

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 29, 2013

[CV06]