Court Opinion

ID: 9881527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 10:08:42.825627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:41.009340
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00375-CV

                                   T. M. and J. B., Appellants

                                                v.

               Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

        FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
    NO. 22-0017-CPSC1, THE HONORABLE BRANDY HALLFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellants T.M. (Mother) and J.B. (Father) each appeal from the trial court’s

order, following a jury trial, terminating their parental rights to their one-year-old son J.M.

(Jason). 1 In each appeal, Mother’s and Father’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw and an Anders brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex.

2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental

rights). Each brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641,

646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). Counsel has certified to this Court that he has

       1
          For the child’s privacy, we refer to him using a pseudonym and to his parents and other
relatives by their familial relationships to each other, and we refer to the child’s approximate age
at the time of trial. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
provided Mother and Father with a copy of the Anders brief and informed them of their right to

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

               Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record

to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. In March 2022, the Texas Department of Family and

Protective Services (the Department) received a report alleging neglectful supervision of Jason

by Mother. Following an investigation, 2 the Department filed a petition seeking the termination

of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial.

               At trial, Department investigator Tee Martin testified that Mother gave birth to

Jason at home and, immediately thereafter, went with Jason to a hospital, where she and Jason

both tested positive for amphetamines. 3 When Martin interviewed Mother at the hospital, she

initially denied using methamphetamine but eventually admitted that she had used

methamphetamine “at least two to three times monthly throughout the pregnancy” and as

recently as three weeks before Jason was born.                  Mother acknowledged that her

methamphetamine use was “a problem” but believed “she could quit whenever she wanted to”

and “said it is like just smoking a cigarette.”

               Martin also spoke with Father at the hospital. Martin testified that the Department

would not let Father take Jason home from the hospital because “[Father] was also listed in

       2
           The investigation is summarized in the Department’s removal affidavit, a copy of
which is included in the clerk’s record. However, the removal affidavit was not admitted into
evidence at trial. Although the Department offered it into evidence, counsel for Mother objected
to the admissibility of the affidavit on hearsay grounds, and the trial court sustained the
objection. Department investigator Tee Martin provided testimony describing the investigation.
       3
          Mother testified that she went into labor unexpectedly at Father’s house and gave birth
to Jason there. Father called 911, and an ambulance transported Mother and Jason to a hospital.
                                                  2
another CPS case related to his 3-year-old son” and “there were concerns for drug use by

[Father] in that case.” 4   The Department also would not let Father’s mother (Paternal

Grandmother) take Jason home from the hospital because there were concerns that Paternal

Grandmother had allowed Father to be with his other son unsupervised. Martin asked Father if

he would be willing to take a drug test to alleviate the Department’s concerns, and Father said

that he would. However, Father did not take a drug test during the investigation. When Martin

later asked Father about why he had not tested, Father “basically told me that we don’t know

anything about him, we’re just kidnapping his son.”

              Approximately one week after the case began, Jason was ordered removed from

Mother and Father and was placed in a foster home. Foster Mother testified that her household

was composed of her, her husband, their four-year-old adopted son, and Jason. Foster Mother

recounted that when Jason first came into their care, he had developmental delays and many

medical needs, and she and her husband were able to meet those needs and take Jason to his

medical appointments. She testified that Jason “has come a long way” since the beginning of the

case but acknowledged that he is “still very behind” for his age. Foster Mother explained:

       He started physical therapy at 4 months old, which I never thought a baby that
       young would need physical therapy. . . . He sees a physical therapist twice a
       week, he sees an occupational therapist twice a week, and now he is doing speech
       and feeding therapy once a week. He is almost 15 months, and he still is not
       walking, so that is a concern.

       4
            This child, who was another child of Mother and Father, also tested positive for
amphetamines at birth. Mother and Father had voluntarily relinquished their parental rights to
this child in a prior CPS case, and he was in the custody of Paternal Grandmother at the time
of trial.
                                               3
Foster Mother further testified that Jason was very bonded with her, loves her husband, and

“adores” their adopted son. The family’s goal was to adopt Jason, and they also wanted him to

get to know his biological family “as long as it was a safe situation.”

                Both Mother and Father testified. Mother testified that she had eight children,

including Jason. She had voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to four of those children

and had her parental rights to the other three children involuntarily terminated. She explained in

detail the circumstances surrounding her prior CPS cases, which included allegations that one of

her ex-boyfriends had sexually abused one of her children and another ex-boyfriend had

assaulted her in front of her other children.

                Mother also testified that she had pending criminal charges in Hays County for

burglary of a habitation and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine.              She

invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked further questions related to her arrest for

methamphetamine possession. However, Mother admitted that she had used methamphetamine

in the past, including when she was pregnant with Jason, but testified that she no longer used it.

Mother acknowledged that using methamphetamine while pregnant can be harmful to a child and

could be considered child abuse.         Mother agreed that she had endangered Jason by using

methamphetamine while pregnant with him and agreed that she did not complete her

court-ordered    services,   including    individual   counseling,   a    psychological   evaluation,

domestic-violence classes, and drug testing, although she had completed a drug and

alcohol assessment.

                At the time of trial, Mother worked for multiple ride-sharing and food-delivery

companies. While the case was ongoing, Mother had resided with friends. She had found an

                                                  4
apartment but had only recently moved into it, and that was where she planned to live with

Jason. Mother testified that she was no longer in a relationship with Father.

                Father testified that he had been in a relationship with Mother for “four to five

years,” although “[i]t wasn’t always intimate.” They were friends before they dated, and they

sometimes used methamphetamine together, although not regularly. They occasionally used

methamphetamine without each other’s knowledge, which created difficulty in their relationship.

Father testified that although he and Mother were no longer in a relationship at the time of trial,

they did “get along.” Father acknowledged that he had not completed his court-ordered services,

including parenting classes, outpatient drug treatment, and drug testing. When asked if he did

drugs during the case, Father testified, “Real seldomly here or there.” However, he later clarified

that his drug use was during the prior CPS case involving his other son and that he had not used

drugs since Jason was born. When he had used drugs, methamphetamine was his “drug of

choice,” although he had used cocaine and marijuana when he was younger. Father testified that

he had been sober since September 2019, although he acknowledged that he had relapsed on

methamphetamine either “twice” or “a few times” since then. Father could not recall the last

time that he had used methamphetamine. He acknowledged that it was possible that he could

relapse in the future.

                Father admitted to engaging in domestic violence in the past but testified that it

was not with Mother or any other woman. Father testified that the violence involved his father

and that he and his “dad have gotten into it a few times” because “[g]uys get in conflicts.” One

of those conflicts had resulted in Father being charged with aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon, although that charge was later dismissed. Father testified that he had been arrested

“maybe ten times total,” four of which involved drug charges, and he currently had pending

                                                5
charges in Hays County for possession of methamphetamine and endangering a child,

specifically his other child with Mother. Father invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to the

Department’s questions related to those charges.          Father also had a pending charge in

Williamson County for theft.

               Father currently lived in a house that was rented by Paternal Grandmother. He

had lost a security job because of his pending criminal charges and was working part-time as a

mobile mechanic at the time of trial. Father acknowledged that he was “not financially stable to

have a baby right now” and “not ready” to take care of Jason, but until he was ready, he “really

want[ed] [Jason] to go to a family member” such as Paternal Grandmother or Father’s brother

who lived in Midland. Father later acknowledged that it was “not fair for [Jason] to have to wait

at all” for Father to be ready to take care of him, and Father further acknowledged that Jason’s

current placement was safe and stable and that Jason’s foster parents were “good people” with a

“good home,” who were meeting Jason’s needs.

               Department caseworker Demont Jenkins testified that Mother and Father engaged

in some court-ordered services but not others. One of the services in which they did not engage

was submitting to regular drug testing. Jenkins testified that consequently, “it’s difficult to say if

the parents are clean consistently or if they made the changes necessary to be a safe place for

[Jason] to return to.” The Department’s plan for Jason was for him to remain with the foster

family, and Jenkins testified that Jason was “doing very well at his placement.”              Jenkins

explained that the foster family was a loving family, their home was safe and stable, and the

foster parents were able to care for all of Jason’s physical and medical needs, including taking

him to “100 percent” of his medical appointments.

                                                  6
               Leah Carr, the CASA volunteer assigned to the case, testified that the foster home

was “very cozy” and “very safe” for Jason, with food, toys, musical instruments, and “everything

that you would think should be in a home with a toddler [] in there. But also clean, kept well,

just a cozy home.” Carr added that Jason and the foster parents’ son are “best friends, buddies”

and that “[t]hey light up when they see each other. They have a bond that is very strong, just like

you would have with your own siblings.” Carr believed that it was in Jason’s best interest to

remain in his current placement and be adopted by his foster family.

               Other witnesses at trial included Deputy Andres Vega of the Hays County

Sheriff’s Office, who arrested Father in March 2021 for possession of methamphetamine, which

was found in Father’s vehicle during a traffic stop, and for endangering a child, specifically his

other child with Mother, who was in the vehicle with Father at the time of the traffic stop;

Department caseworker Lisa Gaytan, who testified that the home study on one of Father’s

proposed placements, his brother, was not completed because the brother had indicated that he

no longer wanted to be considered as a placement for Jason and that, even if he did, the

placement likely would not have been approved because of the brother’s criminal history and

other issues; hospital social worker Jessica Suarez, who testified that Jason had shown symptoms

of methamphetamine withdrawal at the hospital after he was born; and Paternal Grandmother,

who testified about the circumstances surrounding her adoption of Father’s other child and her

relationship with Father and Mother. Documentary evidence admitted at trial included copies of

Mother’s and Father’s family service plan; Mother’s medical records from the hospital following

Jason’s birth; various court orders made during the prior CPS cases involving Mother’s other

children; Father’s 2022 indictment for possession of methamphetamine and endangering a child;

and judgments of conviction for other crimes that Father had previously committed.

                                                7
               At the conclusion of trial, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that

Mother had: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or

surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child; (2) engaged in

conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers

the physical or emotional well-being of the child; (3) failed to comply with the provisions of a

court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return

of the child; and (4) been the cause of the child being born addicted to a controlled substance.

See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (R). The jury found by clear and convincing

evidence that Father had failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically

established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child.        See id.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(O). The jury further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

In accordance with the jury’s verdict, the trial court ordered Mother’s and Father’s parental

rights to Jason terminated. These appeals followed.

               After reviewing the entire record and the Anders briefs submitted on Mother’s and

Father’s behalf, we have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal. Our

review included the endangerment findings for Mother, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), and we have found no issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings,

see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019). We agree with counsel that each parent’s

appeal is frivolous.

                                                8
                                         CONCLUSION

               We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. 5

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: September 28, 2023

       5
           We deny counsel’s motions to withdraw. The Texas Supreme Court has held that the
right to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings [in the
Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, if after consulting with counsel, Mother or Father
desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.
                                                 9