Court Opinion

ID: 9397937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 06:14:49.764236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.007616
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed May 25, 2023

                                         In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                       __________

                               No. 11-22-00332-CV
                                   __________

                  IN THE INTEREST OF L.R., A CHILD

                     On Appeal from the 326th District Court
                              Taylor County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 10487-CX

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental
rights of the mother and the father of L.R. Both parents filed an appeal. On appeal,
each parent presents a single issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the trial court’s finding that the termination of his or her parental rights is in
the best interest of L.R. Because we disagree with the parents’ contentions, we
affirm the order of the trial court.
                       I. Termination Findings and Standards
      The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b) (West 2022). To terminate parental
rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has
committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)–(U) and that
termination is in the best interest of the child. Id. In this case, the trial court found
that each parent had committed three of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)—
those found in subsections (D), (E), and (O). Neither parent challenges these
findings on appeal.
      The trial court also found, pursuant to Section 161.001(b)(2), that termination
of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the
child. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Each parent challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the trial court’s respective best interest finding.
      To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient in a parental termination case,
we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determine
whether a rational trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its
finding was true. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). To determine if the
evidence is factually sufficient, we give due deference to the finding and determine
whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or
conviction about the truth of the allegations against the parent. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d
17, 25–26 (Tex. 2002). We note that the trial court is the sole arbiter of the credibility
and demeanor of witnesses. In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014) (citing In
re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 86–87 (Tex. 2005)).
      With respect to the best interest of a child, no unique set of factors need be
proved. In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied).
But courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis.
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not
                                            2
limited to, (1) the desires of the child, (2) the emotional and physical needs of the
child now and in the future, (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now
and in the future, (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, (5) the
programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the
child, (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking
custody, (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement, (8) the acts or
omissions of the parent that may indicate that the existing parent–child relationship
is not a proper one, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Id.
Additionally, evidence that proves one or more statutory grounds for termination
may also constitute evidence illustrating that termination is in the child’s best
interest. C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d at 266.
                                II. Evidence Presented at Trial
        The record shows that the Department of Family and Protective Services
became involved in this case when L.R. was one year old.1 The initial intake in this
case was based upon domestic violence between the mother and the father. During
the Department’s investigation, the mother informed the investigator that she and the
father got into an argument and then the father punched the television, kneed the
mother in the forehead, and threw her to the ground. Approximately two months
after the initial intake in this case, the Department received an intake based upon law
enforcement’s execution of a search warrant at the parents’ residence. Drugs, drug
paraphernalia, and stolen items were found in the parents’ residence, and both
parents were arrested that night. No other adult was present to take care of L.R.
After being removed from his parents’ care and taken into the Department’s custody,
L.R. tested positive for methamphetamine at the level of 87,111 pg/mg.

        The record shows that the Department had also been involved with the family at the time of L.R.’s
        1

birth. During the hearing on termination, the mother invoked her Fifth Amendment rights when asked if
L.R. had tested positive at birth for methamphetamine.
                                                   3
       The permanency case manager testified that the Department created a family
service plan for the mother and for the father. Each parent was required by court
order to comply with his or her service plan. The case manager testified regarding
the parents’ compliance with their service plans.
       According to the case manager, the mother, prior to her rearrest, refused to
allow the Department to visit her home and also refused to submit to drug tests. At
the time of trial, the mother was incarcerated—and had been for approximately
thirteen months.     Consequently, she was unable to comply with some of the
requirements of her service plan, but she did continue to visit L.R. and maintain a
relationship with him. The mother testified that she loved L.R. and believed that
L.R. needed for her to remain in his life.
       The record shows that the mother, for years, had led a life of “instability.” Her
parental rights to her older son were terminated in 2015. Furthermore, she had
significant criminal history, including convictions for the following offenses:
possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, a second-degree felony;
theft of a firearm, a state jail felony; theft, a state jail felony; forgery, a third-degree
felony; credit card abuse, a state jail felony; and theft, a class B misdemeanor. Four
of the above offenses were committed after L.R. was born, and one of them was
committed while this case was pending in the trial court.
       Likewise, the father had significant criminal history and was unable to comply
with some of the requirements of his service plan because he was rearrested
approximately two months after L.R.’s removal. At the time of trial, the father had
been incarcerated for approximately thirteen months. Prior to his rearrest, however,
the father tested positive for methamphetamine.
       The father testified that he had been convicted in a federal case for the offense
of conspiracy to effect unauthorized transactions with an access device and was
currently serving a thirty-month sentence for that offense. The father also testified
                                             4
that he had criminal charges pending against him in Taylor County for the offenses
of   fraudulent     possession    of    identifying    information,    possession     of
methamphetamine, organized criminal activity, credit card abuse, assault family
violence, burglary of a vehicle, unlawful carrying of a weapon, theft, and theft of a
firearm—charges which arose in 2019, 2020, and 2021, both before and after L.R.’s
birth. The father invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked about other
criminal history.
      L.R. was two years old at the time of the final hearing on termination. Upon
removal, he was placed with his maternal grandparents and remained with them at
the time of trial. L.R.’s older brother also lived there. According to the case
manager, L.R. was doing well in his grandparents’ care. They provided him with a
safe and stable home and were protective of him. The Department’s plan was for
the parental rights of both parents to be terminated and for the grandparents to adopt
L.R. The case manager believed that termination of the parental rights of both
parents would be in L.R.’s best interest.
         III. Analysis—Best interest findings are supported by the evidence
      In each parent’s sole issue, they assert that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of that
parent’s parental rights would be in the best interest of L.R. The trial court, as the
trier of fact, is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility. A.B., 437 S.W.3d at 503.
We are not at liberty to disturb the determinations of the trier of fact as long as those
determinations are not unreasonable. J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d at 573. Giving due
deference to the trial court, we hold that, based on the evidence presented at trial and
the Holley factors, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or
conviction that termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights would be
in the best interest of L.R. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72.

                                            5
      As set forth above, the Department presented evidence that the mother and the
father engaged in domestic violence and various criminal activity in L.R.’s presence.
L.R. tested positive for methamphetamine at a high level shortly after being removed
from the parents’ care. Both parents had significant criminal history and engaged in
a course of conduct that endangered L.R. Upon considering the record as it relates
to the actions of the mother and the father, the child being exposed to
methamphetamine while in the parents’ care, the emotional and physical danger to
the child now and in the future, the desires of the child (who was too young to
express any desire), the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the
future, the parental abilities of those involved, and the plans for the child by the
Department, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support
(1) the finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interest
of the child and (2) the finding that termination of the father’s parental rights is in
the best interest of the child. See id. We defer to the trial court’s findings as to the
child’s best interest, see C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27, and we cannot hold in this case that
the trial court’s findings as to best interest are not supported by clear and convincing
evidence. Accordingly, we overrule each parent’s sole issue on appeal.
                               IV. This Court’s Ruling
       We affirm the order of the trial court.

                                                 W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                 JUSTICE

May 25, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           6