T he appe al on the m er its is our Ca use N o. 11-09-00126- CV. T hat appe al has bee n a

bat ed pendi ng the dis posi tion of the 1 pre se nt a ppea l. Opinion filed March 5, 20 10



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 01 52 -CV

____ ____ __ IN TH E INT ERE ST OF M. W.C , JR .; M. C. ; & E. P. , C HILDREN

On App eal from the 318th Distric t Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F M-42,150

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The trial c ourt terminated L .C.’s pare ntal rig hts, and she perf ecte d an appe al. L .C. filed a 1

s t a t e m e n to f

p o i n t s f o r a p p e a l a s r e qu i r e d

b y T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN . § 263.405(b) ( Ver non 2008). The trial c ourt deter

mined that L .C. did not pre sent a substantial que stion for appea l and found that the appea l on the merits was fr ivolous pursuant to T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE ANN . § 13.003(b) (Ve rnon 2002). L .C. has perfec ted t his appea l challeng ing the trial court’ s findings that her a ppeal
on the me ri ts w a s f

ri vo lou s. We a ff

ir m. Issue on Appe al I n h e r s ole iss ue on

a pp e a l, L .C. c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d i ts di sc re tio n w he n it found her appea l on the merits to be frivolous. L .C. broug ht b o t h l ega l and fa ctual suff iciency2

challeng es to the evidenc e. L .C. a rgues that the trial cour

t specifica lly

err ed whe n it did not review

a ll o f t he e vid e nc e int

ro du c e d at th e un de rl yingbe nc h tr ia l.

Applicable Law A. T EX
. F AM

. C ODE § 263.405. Se c tio n 26 3. 40 5( b) pr ov ide s that, wi thi n fi ft e e n da y s fr om the date the tr ia l c ourt e nte rs its final orde r, the a

ppealingparty

must file a statement of points that the pa rty i n t ends t o pursue on
a pp e a l. S e c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (d ) r e qu ir e s:

Th e tr ia l c ourt

sh a ll h old

a he ari ngno t late r t

ha n th e 30 th d ay

a ft e r t he date the final orde r is signe d to determine whether :

(1) a new tria l should be g rante d; (2) a party ’s claim of indig ence , if any , should be sustained; and (3) the appea l is frivolous as provided by Section 13.003(b), Civil Practice and Remedie s Code.
B. Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code § 13.003. Section 13.003 addre sses when a court re porter a

nd the cler

k of the trial c ourt shall provide the appe llate re cord w ithout cost. Section 13.003(b) states that “[i] n deter mining whether an appea l is f r iv o lo u s , a

ju d g e ma

y c o n s id e r w h e th e r th e a p p e ll an t h a s p r e s e n te d

a s u b s ta n ti a l q u e s ti o nfor appellate revie w.” C. F riv olo us ap

pe al f ind ing an d a pp e lla te re v ie w. An appe al is frivolous u n d er S ection 263.405(d) and Section 13.003 whe n the trial cour t deter mines that it lacks an ar g uable basis in law or in fac t. D.R. v. Tex . Dep’ t of Family & Protective Se rv s. , 281 S.W .3d 598, 602 ( T e x. Ap p . — E l P a s o 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t

. ); In r e M .N.V. , 216 S.W .3d 833 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; In re K.D. , 20 2 S.W. 3d 86 0, 86 6 (T e x. Ap p. — F or t Wor th 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; In re H.D .H. , 127 S.W. 3d 92 1, 92 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 2 00 4, no pe t.) . A t th is sta g e , a pp e llate re vie w i s li mit e d to a re vie w o f t

he trial c ou

rt ’s e xer c ise of

its dis c re tio n in deter mining that the appeal i s frivolous. In re A.B. , 269 S.W .3d 120, 124 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008,
no pe t.) ; Lumpkin v. De p’t o f F a mily &Protective Se r

v s . , 2 6 0 S. W. 3 d

5 2 4 , 5 2 6

- 2 7 ( T e x.3

Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 08 , n o p e t.) ; K.D. , 202 S.W .3d at 865. This de termination i s m ade based on the rec ord bef

ore the appellate court. H.D.H. , 127 S.W .3d at 924.

Re c or d B e for e Thi s Co ur t The reco rd b efore this court consists of the c lerk’s r ecor d; the repor ter’s r ecor d from the hear ing to de termine whe ther L .C. was indige nt and whethe r the a ppeal was fr i v olous; and the supplemental re porter’ s rec ord conta ining the e ight- pag e af fidavit of Adr iana Me ndoza, the investigator/case worke r for the three children who are the subject of the se proc eeding s. Mendoza’s aff idavit was admitted wit hout objection and contains a detailed summ ary of t he evide nce pr esente d at the ter mination hearing . At the hear ing reg arding whether the appea l w as frivolous, the trial court took judicial notice of a ll of the testimony p re sented at the termination proce eding s. The re cord ref lects that the same trial court presided ove r both the termination proc eeding s and this hear ing a nd that no objection was r aised. I n her a ffidavit, Mendoza states that she was the repr esentative for the Texas Depa rtment of Family an d P ro t ective Services at the termination hea ring and that she w as pre sent for the entire proce eding s. The thre e childre n involved in this case we re unde r the ag e of five. Me ndoza detailed the testimony

reg ardingL .C.’s twenty -y ear history with the Department, how she had se ven childre n with six differ ent men, how he r four older children had been placed in foster ca re a nd her pa renta l rig hts had bee n terminated, a nd how the De partment re moved the young est of her children a t the time of his birth. Mendoza descr ibed L.C

. ’s difficultly keepingher home clea

n and how the home was
un sanit ary . T he re wa s tr a sh , r ott ingfo od , and br ok e n fu rn iture in pil e s on

the fl oo r. Al tho ug h L .C. had no pets, ther e wa s a strongodor of ur ine, and f ece s was found on the floor. Me n d o z a a l s o d e s c r i b e d

L

. C

. ’ s d i f

f i c u l t i e s p r o v i d i n g t h e c h i l dr e na s a f e an d s t a b l e ho me environment. Dur ing the investigation, L .C. acknow ledg ed that her home was a safe ty hazard for the childre n. L .C. te stified that she had be en in five or six violent relationships. One of the three children involved in this case was soake d in urine and ha d cig are tte burns on her arm at the time she
was re moved. L .C. a lso te stified that she had c ompleted a substanc e abuse assessment and substanc e abuse c ounseling and that she w ould now test clea n. She acknow ledg ed that in the past she ha d had

a te rr ibl e a tti tud e and

that th e pe op le that sh e a llo we d to sta y wi th h e r r e fus ed to he lp h e r w ith
e xpe ns e s. Me nd oza

de ta ile d L .C. ’s fa ilure to c omp ly wi th v ari ou s f

a mil y se rv ic e pla

ns .4

Al l thre e c hil dr e n w e re thr ivi ngin f os te r c are , a ll thr e e ha d b on de d w iththe ir fo ste r p are nts , and their f

oster par ents wante d to adopt them. The young est child, who had be en re moved at birth,
wa s ahe a d d e ve lop me nta lly . T he tw o o lde r c hil dren in vo lved in t his c a se su ff

e re d s oc ia l, de ve lopme nta l, a

nd a c a de mic de lay s. Th e y ha d b ound ary

and se lf c on tr ol i ssu e s. B oth

c ou ld be c ome ph y sic a lly vio le nt tow ard the mse lve s and oth e rs . Sin c e the ir pla c e me nt i n f

os te r c are , b oth
wer e noticea

bly calmer . The ser

vice pr oviders g ave guarde d prog nosi s fo r t h e older c hildren and
rec ommended that they

rema in in their curr ent environme nts and continue c urre nt therapie s. Mendoza furthe r deta iled L .C.’s testimony conce rning her desire to keep her children and he r g oals to keep he r home saf e for them. L .C. stated that she knew she had ma de mistakes and that she was not g oing to make mistakes in the future if h er ch i l d ren were returne d to her. L .C. requeste d visitation i f the c ourt order ed the c hildren to rema in in foster ca re. Mendoza also detailed testimony of three witnesses who a cknowledg ed that L .C. had made ba d d e c isi on s in

the pa st b ut w a s sh ow ingimp ro ve me nt. Points on Appeal and the Trial Court’s Findings L .C. filed specific points on appeal c halleng ing the leg al and f actua l suffici en t of the evidenc e for eac h of the g rounds that the trial c ourt based its dec ision to t erminate . L ikewise, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d v e ry

speci fi c fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw c on c e rn ingits de c isi on to terminate. This Court’s Holding Unlike the ca se of In reS. T. , 263 S.W

. 3d 394 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.), L .C.’s points are not too g ener al as to be ina dequate . Unlike the ca se of In re A.S. , 2 3 9 S. W. 3 d 3 9 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —B e a

umo nt 2 00 7, no pe t.) , th e re is s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d b e fo re thi s c ourt to e na ble
us to r e vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t th e a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s. Havi n g r e v ie w e d th e e n ti r e r e c o r d in c lu d in g th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s d e ta il e d f in d in g s o f f

a c t a nd conclusions of law, we do not f ind that the trial court abused its discr etion in determining that L .C.’s appea l is frivolous because it lacks an a rguable ba sis in law or in fac t. L .C.’s issue is overruled. The orde r of the tr ial court is af firmed.

PER C URI AM Marc h 5, 2010 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.