Court Opinion

ID: 9895992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 09:12:27.665145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:16.183305
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-23-00290-CV

                          IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., A CHILD

                           On Appeal from the 46th District Court
                                  Wilbarger County, Texas
                 Trial Court No. 29,617, Honorable Cornell Curtis, Presiding

                                    November 8, 2023
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before QUINN, CJ, and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

       Appellant, the mother of JW, appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental

rights to her child. She challenges the judgment through two issues, arguing the evidence

was insufficient to support either the predicate statutory grounds for termination or the

best-interest finding. We affirm.

       Background

       By the conclusion of the final hearing, JW was just over a year old. The Texas

Department of Family and Protective Services removed JW from mother’s care following

reports that JW tested positive for illegal substances at the time of his birth. Investigation

uncovered reports that mother used illegal substances throughout the pregnancy and
within the 24 hours of JW’s birth. Her older son had also been removed from her care

due to drug use. 1

        A caseworker testified to mother’s sustained drug use, JW’s positive drug screens

at birth, failure of mother to complete her services, and difficulties keeping contact with

mother through the pendency of the case. The court also heard evidence that JW was

“thriving” in his foster care placement with his paternal aunt, had gained weight after being

underweight at birth, had caught up developmentally, and had started saying words. JW

referred to his aunt and her fiancé as “momma” and “dada.”

        At the close of the evidence, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence

supported termination of mother’s parental rights pursuant to sections 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (O), and (R) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)

(D), (E), (O), (R). It further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of

mother’s rights was in JW’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2).

        Standard of Review

        The standards for reviewing the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in

termination cases are well-established and described most recently in In re J.F.-G., 627

S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2021). We apply them here.

        Issue One

        Through her first issue, mother purports to question the legal and factual

sufficiency of the evidence underlying the statutory predicates found by the trial court as

permitting termination. 2 We overrule the issue.

        1 The record indicates mother had made no efforts to regain custody of her older child.

        2 We say purport because she actually described the issue as “challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the finding by the Trial Court that such termination was in the Child’s best interest.”
                                                    2
        Mother’s analysis under the issue includes mere general reference to court

opinions and discussion of the standard of review. Missing, however, is substantive

analysis of the evidence concerning each of the predicate grounds. She made no effort

in that regard. Consequently, she inadequately briefed and, thereby, waived the issue.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (obligating an appellant to support issue asserted with “clear

and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities

and to the record”); Approximately $23,606.00 U.S. Currency v. State, No. 07-19-00297-

CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 2602, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (finding failure to adequately brief an issue results in its waiver).

        Nevertheless, and due to the nature of the rights involved and ramifications of

termination under (D) or (E), see TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(M) (permitting

subsequent termination if same occurred earlier under (D) or (E) viz another child), we

conducted our own independent review of the record. It resulted in our encountering

sufficient evidence to at least warrant termination under statutory ground (D). The latter

permits termination upon clear and convincing proof that a parent has “knowingly placed

or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger

the physical or emotional well-being of the child[.]” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

161.001(b)(1)(D). Furthermore, drug abuse during pregnancy constitutes conduct that

endangers a child’s physical and emotional well-being. In re A.J.F., No. 07-20-00242-

CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 947, at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem.

op.).

(Emphasis added). A limited best interests analysis composed the substance of the second issue, however.
So, we construe the first issue as an attempt to address the predicate grounds.

                                                   3
       The record contains evidence of such drug abuse and its continuation. It also

resulted in the child’s testing positive for illegal substances at birth.        Using illegal

controlled substances impairs the ability to properly care and supervise a child,

particularly one as young as JW. So too does it endanger the child’s emotional and

physical well-being. Id. Thus, the trial court’s finding of (D) had the support of both legally

and factually sufficient evidence.

       Issue Two

       Via her second issue, mother challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of

her parental rights was in the best interest of her child. This issue also lacked substantive

analysis. Nevertheless, mother’s continued use of drugs, her failure to complete services

required of her (including a drug assessment and parenting class), her apparent lack of

financial means to care for a child, her failure to provide the child financial support, the

flea infested condition of her home, the minimal visitation between mother and child

during pendency of the suit, the child’s positive progress in the home of a relative, and

other evidence of record legally and factually support the trial court’s finding as to best

interest favoring termination. Consequently, we overrule this issue as well.

       The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                                                 Brian Quinn
                                                                 Chief Justice

                                              4