Court Opinion

ID: 2860328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:30:50.079964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:39.548231
License: Public Domain

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<META NAME="DATE" CONTENT="3/13/1996">
<TITLE>Elendu                                                              </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></CENTER>
</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>ON MOTION FOR REHEARING</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-95-00450-CV</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>Brenda Elendu, Appellant</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 91-1325, HONORABLE HUME COFER, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	In her motion for rehearing, Elendu contends that this Court erred in failing to
reverse the trial court's judgment because the evidence adduced at trial does not show actual
injury to the children.  Specifically, Elendu asserts that the evidence does not reflect any particular
manner in which her action or inaction directly endangered the physical or emotional well-being
of the children.  Additionally, she re-urges her argument that the Department failed to develop
medical or psychological testimony demonstrating the specific impact of Elendu's conduct on the
children.  In the absence of such evidence, she argues, the Department cannot show by clear and
convincing evidence that the children were endangered within the meaning of section 15.02(1)(D)
&amp; (E).  The supreme court has foreclosed these arguments, however.  <EM>See In re M.C., D.C., and
C.W.</EM>, No. 95-0871, slip op. at 3 (Tex. March 7, 1996) (holding that evidence of unsanitary living
conditions and neglect of basic physical needs can be just as dangerous to children's physical well-being as direct physical abuse).  We overrule Elendu's motion for rehearing.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">					<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                               </SPAN></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">					Bea Ann Smith, Justice</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Overruled</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Filed:   March 27, 1996</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>