Court Opinion

ID: 9918551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-15 11:09:17.360708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:42.964717
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
      ___________________________
           No. 02-23-00047-CV
           No. 02-23-00048-CV
      ___________________________

   IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., A CHILD

 On Appeal from the 442nd District Court
           Denton County, Texas
 Trial Court Nos. 20-6433-442, 21-5531-442

 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Wallach, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants Adam and Lilly Hamilton1 appeal from the trial court’s amended

order (the Order) in the adoption proceeding that they filed regarding two-year-old

J.W. (Jacob) and in the child protection suit concerning Jacob in which the Hamiltons

had intervened. The Order, which was effective in both proceedings, dismissed the

Hamiltons from the child protection suit and denied their motion to waive some of

the Family Code’s adoption requirements.2 Specifically, the Hamiltons had requested a

waiver of the requirements that the child reside with a person or persons wanting to

adopt and that the child’s managing conservator consent to the adoption. See Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. §§ 162.009, 162.010. The child had not been living with the

Hamiltons, and the child’s managing conservator, the Department of Family and

Protective Services (the Department), had refused to consent to the Hamiltons’

adoption.

      In four issues, the Hamiltons argue that they established as a matter of law that

the Department’s refusal to consent to the adoption was without good cause (issue

four) and that the trial court erred by signing the Order and denying their motion to

vacate the trial court’s Order (issue one), by granting the Department’s motion for

      1
         To protect the anonymity of the child associated with this appeal, we use
pseudonyms to refer to him, Appellants, and the family with whom he has been
living. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
      2
       The Order further denied all other relief requested by the Hamiltons.

                                          2
directed verdict (issue two), and by denying their request to waive the consent

requirement (issue three). Because some evidence supported the trial court’s finding

and the Hamiltons’ evidence was insufficient to prove as a matter of law that the

Department lacked good cause, we will affirm.

                                     Background

      Jacob’s biological mother (Mother) gave birth to Jacob in August 2020, while

Mother was incarcerated. Mother had three other children (the siblings) who had

previously been taken into the Department’s care because of Mother’s drug use.

Those children had been placed with Natalie and Charles Kent, but at some point, the

placement was changed to the Hamiltons. The siblings were still with the Hamiltons

when Jacob was born.

      Two days after Jacob’s birth, the Department filed a child protection suit

regarding Jacob and took him into its care. Mother wanted Jacob placed with the

Kents, and the Department agreed to the placement. Because the Kents had a

“supportive relationship and mentoring role” with Mother, the Department

considered the Kents to be Jacob’s fictive kin as well as foster parents.

      In December 2020, i.e., around four months after Jacob’s birth, the Hamiltons

adopted Jacob’s siblings. In April 2021, when Jacob was eight months old, the

Hamiltons intervened in the child protection suit seeking termination of Mother’s

parental rights to Jacob, termination of the father’s rights, and appointment as

                                            3
managing conservators. After Mother’s attorney objected that the Hamiltons lacked

standing to intervene, they filed a petition for adoption in a separate proceeding.

       Before a trial court may grant an adoption, the child must have resided for at

least six months with the person seeking the adoption. Id. § 162.009. Further, unless

the person seeking adoption is the child’s managing conservator, the managing

conservator must give written consent for the adoption. Id. § 162.010. However, the

trial court may waive the residency requirement if doing so is in the child’s best

interest, and the managing conservator’s consent is not required if the trial court finds

that consent is being refused without good cause. See id. §§ 162.009, 162.010. In the

Hamiltons’ intervention petition, they asked the trial court to waive the consent

requirement.

       The trial court signed temporary orders allowing the Hamiltons ten hours’

visitation per week. In December 2021, the Kents intervened in the child protection

suit. They requested continuation of Jacob’s placement with them, termination of any

rights that the Hamiltons had to Jacob, and termination of Jacob’s biological parents’

parental rights. In early 2022, both biological parents voluntarily relinquished their

parental rights.

       In June 2022, the Department moved to dismiss the Hamiltons as intervening

parties in the child protection suit and to dismiss their adoption petition on the basis

that the Department had not consented to their adopting Jacob. The Hamiltons then

                                            4
filed in the adoption proceeding a motion to waive the consent and residency

requirements.3

       The trial court held a hearing in August 2022. The Hamiltons called four

witnesses: Carla Johnson, the director of Kids First, Inc., a child placement agency;

Christina Ross, the caseworker; Dr. Brooks McKenzie, a psychologist; and Lilly

Hamilton. Most of the testimony centered on three topics: (1) the Hamiltons’

parenting ability and readiness to adopt, (2) federal and state policy regarding sibling

placements in foster care, and (3) the fact that Jacob was not placed with the

Hamiltons despite the siblings being in their care.

       Regarding the first topic, Johnson testified that except for one lapse, the

Hamiltons had maintained their licenses as a foster home and adoptive home

throughout the proceedings. She also testified that the Kents had previously been

licensed through her agency but were not still licensed with that agency at the time of

trial. However, there was “nothing that was concerning or a reason [the agency] had

       3
         On appeal, the Hamiltons do not cite Section 162.009 and do not make any
express arguments challenging the trial court’s failure to waive the residency
requirement, and that ground provides an alternative basis on which to affirm the
Order’s denial of their petition. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 162.009(a). However, even
if we assumed for purposes of this appeal that they impliedly challenge that part of the
Order through their assertions that it is in Jacob’s best interest to be with his siblings,
see id. § 162.009(b) (stating trial court may waive residency requirement if doing so is
in child’s best interest), we would not need to address the argument because of our
holding regarding the consent requirement. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

                                            5
to close them,” and she had no more information about why the Kents had left the

agency.

      Johnson further testified about the home study that she had prepared for the

Hamiltons. Ross was also asked about a home study that the trial court had ordered

the Department to conduct on the Hamiltons’ home, separate from the one that

Johnson’s placement agency had done. That order had been signed before Ross

became the caseworker, and she testified that she did not know whether that study

had been done. However, Lilly testified that the Department had done the study.

      Dr. McKenzie testified about a child’s attachment to caregivers and whether he

believed that Jacob would do well in the Hamiltons’ care.

          • Dr. McKenzie explained that a child starts forming attachments between

             six months and eighteen months of age and that after eighteen months,

             “it starts to explode until 3, 4, 5 years old” in emotional age.

          • At two years old, Jacob was “in that explosive stage.”

          • Asked if a child would be damaged by being moved from a home in

             which the child had formed a secure attachment to the caregivers, Dr.

             McKenzie responded, “[T]hat will absolutely devastate a child.”

          • Nevertheless, based on his observations of the Hamiltons and the

             siblings, he thought that a child moving into the Hamiltons’ home would

                                            6
              probably experience the same positive outcome as the siblings had. He

              described the Hamiltons’ home as an “ideal placement for any child.”

       Dr. McKenzie could not testify about the attachment that Jacob had to the

Kents because he had not observed them together. Ross, however, stated that Jacob is

doing well with the Kents, that theirs was the only home he had ever known, that he

appeared to be bonded with the Kents and their children, and that she believed it

would be detrimental and traumatic to move him from that home. She stated that in

her opinion, considering all of his needs, it would not be in his best interest to move

him. The Hamiltons produced no evidence to contradict Ross’s testimony about how

well Jacob was doing in the Kents’ care, and Lily stated that as far as she knew, Jacob

loved the Kents and seemed happy.

       As for policies around sibling placements, the Hamiltons asked Ross to read

from various Department publications relating to the Department’s policy of placing

siblings together.

          • From a Department document entitled, “CPS Rights of Children and

              Youth in Foster Care,” Ross read aloud a section stating that a child has

              the right to live with their siblings in foster care “if possible,” and if not,

              to know why. The section further states that “[i]f there are no safety or

              other compelling reasons” why a child in foster care cannot live with

              their siblings, then it is “the caseworker’s job to try and find a home” in

              which the siblings can live together.

                                             7
         • The Department has a “Placement Process Resource Guide,” which is

            intended to help Department employees “do [their] job better” but is

            not a substitute for Department policy. From that document, Ross read

            aloud a section stating that “[f]ederal law and guidance, state law, and

            best practice call for” the Department and courts to “prioritize

            placements with relatives and other individuals with whom the child is

            connected,” including siblings who have been adopted.

         • Ross also read a section of the same guide stating that under federal law,

            the Department “must make reasonable efforts to place siblings together

            unless [it] documents that doing so is contrary to the safety or well-being

            of one of the siblings” and that if the siblings are not placed together,

            the Department must provide for visitation or other interaction unless

            doing so would be unsafe.

         • Ross had been the caseworker for only four months, but she stated that

            she could not recall any documentation of efforts to place the siblings

            together, that the case file did not contain documentation of

            conversations with the Hamiltons, and that she was not aware of any

            safety concerns with the Hamiltons’ home.

      Each side elicited testimony about Jacob’s placement with the Kents instead of

the Hamiltons.

                                          8
• Ross testified that it was her understanding that the Hamiltons had

   declined to take Jacob when he was first taken into care, and she said

   that the Hamiltons’ not wanting him to be placed in their home was a

   “compelling reason” to place him elsewhere. Ross further testified that

   “[r]egardless of that, . . . the least restrictive [placement] would have

   been considered first, [and] one of those would be to place with fictive

   kin, which the [Department] also considers like [a] relative. And [the

   Department] would consider the request of the parent.” Ross testified

   that Mother wanted Jacob placed with the Kents and that the Kents

   maintained a relationship with both Mother—with whom they had a

   supportive and mentoring relationship—and the biological father while

   ensuring all contact between the parents and Jacob was safe. Those

   considerations supported placement with the Kents.

• Lilly disputed that the Hamiltons had been offered Jacob’s placement

   when he was taken into care; she contended that the Department had

   not contacted them at that time. However, she and Adam were aware of

   Jacob’s birth because Natalie sent her a picture of Jacob after his birth.

• Lilly did not deny that she and Adam did not want to take Jacob at that

   point—she testified that she and Natalie were both concerned about

                                 9
             how the siblings would be affected if the Hamiltons took in Jacob and

             he was later reunited with Mother.

          • Lilly stated that she and Natalie had discussed the Kents’ taking Jacob

             initially and the Hamiltons’ taking placement of him if his biological

             parents’ rights were terminated.4

          • Lilly said that she told a caseworker5 that she and her husband “would

             go ahead and take” Jacob, and she also said that based on statements

             from the caseworker, “[her] understanding [was] that the caseworker

             understood [that] the Kents would serve as a bridge placement until it

             was more secure with [Mother]’s outcome” and that the caseworker

             “already knew about the plan” when Lily mentioned it to her. However,

             Lily did not say when her conversation with the caseworker took place.

          • On cross-examination, Lilly acknowledged that when Jacob was born,

             she did not tell the Department that she and her husband wanted Jacob

      4
       In addition to this conversation, Lilly also testified about an earlier
conversation in January 2020, when Lilly first learned from Natalie that Mother was
pregnant; Lilly testified that at that time, she told Natalie that the Hamiltons would be
excited to have Jacob. However, at that point, which was early in Mother’s pregnancy,
the Department was not involved, and thus there was no need for a placement
decision.
      5
       Ross was the third caseworker on the case, and the siblings also had a
caseworker. In most of Lily’s testimony, when she referenced a caseworker, she did
not identify the caseworker to whom she was referring.

                                           10
   and that, even after they adopted the siblings, did not ask to be Jacob’s

   placement. Lilly admitted that she did not mention to the caseworker

   that they wanted Jacob until he was over five months old. She further

   acknowledged that they had contact with the Department because of

   their adoption of the siblings.

• Lilly testified that after Jacob was born, they contacted the caseworker

   more than ten times about arranging a visit, but the caseworker only

   once returned their call to say that she would get back to them, and then

   she never did. She did not say, however, when after his birth these

   contacts occurred.

• Lilly further acknowledged that after Jacob was placed with the Kents in

   August 2020, she and her husband did not ask the Kents to see him and

   did not meet him until January 2021. When Jacob had issues with a

   hemangioma, the Hamiltons did not ask the Kents how his doctor’s

   appointments were going.

• The Department asked Lily about a time that one of the siblings, a six-

   year-old, brought a pocketknife to a visit with Jacob. Lily thought it was

   appropriate for the child to have the pocketknife at the visit because he

   was “very responsible” and her husband had “spent a lot of time talking

   to him about it.”

                                 11
      After the Hamiltons rested, the trial court granted the Department’s motion for

a directed verdict, and the court signed an order that denied the Hamiltons’ motion to

waive the consent and residency requirements. The Hamiltons appealed, but this

court dismissed the appeal because the appealed-from order was neither a final

judgment nor an interlocutory appeal authorized by statute.

      After the appeal’s dismissal, the Hamiltons filed a motion to vacate the trial

court’s order. The trial court then signed the Order, which (1) found that the

Hamiltons had not proved that the Department lacked good cause to withhold

consent, (2) denied the Hamiltons’ motion to waive the consent and residency

requirements, (3) terminated their weekly visitation with Jacob and their relationship

with him, (4) denied all other requested relief, and (5) dismissed them from the suit.

The Hamiltons filed an appeal from both proceedings.

                                     Discussion

      In the Hamiltons’ first issue, they argue that the trial court erred by signing the

Order and denying their motion to vacate. 6 In the Hamiltons’ second issue, they argue

that the trial court erred by granting the Department’s motion for directed verdict on

the Hamilton’s claim that the Department lacked good cause to refuse to consent to

      6
        Under their first issue, the Hamiltons also argue that they had standing to seek
adoption. We have not found in the record any challenge to the Hamiltons’ standing
to seek adoption. Although the Department moved to dismiss their adoption petition,
it did so on the basis that the Department had not granted consent for the adoption.
Regardless, we agree that the Hamiltons had standing. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 102.005.

                                          12
their adoption of Jacob. In their third issue, the Hamiltons argue that the trial court

erred by denying their request to waive the Department’s consent to their adoption of

Jacob. Finally, in their fourth issue, they argue that they established as a matter of law

that the Department was without good cause to refuse consent to their adoption of

Jacob. Because the Hamiltons argue these issues together, we address them together.

I. Burden of Proof at Trial and Standard of Review on Appeal

      We generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an adoption

petition for abuse of discretion. In re J.G., 412 S.W.3d 83, 87 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2013, no pet.). However, when the petitioner is not the managing conservator and the

managing conservator has not consented to the adoption, the trial court may not grant

the adoption unless it first finds that the managing conservator’s consent was refused

or revoked without good cause. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 162.010. As the parties

seeking waiver of the consent requirement, the Hamiltons had the burden to prove

the Department’s lack of good cause. See In re M.P.J., No. 14-03-00746-CV,

2004 WL 1607507, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 20, 2004, pet. denied)

(mem. op.). “A managing conservator has good cause to refuse consent when it has a

good[-] faith reason to believe the best interest of the child requires that it withhold

consent.” Id. (citing Chapman v. Home, 561 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1978, no writ)). Thus, the Hamiltons had to prove that the Department did not have a

good-faith reason to believe that refusing consent was in Jacob’s best interest. See id.

                                            13
       Although the Department moved for directed verdict, in a bench trial, a

“motion for directed verdict” is more properly termed a “motion for judgment.” Est.

of Pandozy, No. 05-19-00755-CV, 2021 WL 711500, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 22,

2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Matheus v. Sasser, 164 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2005, no pet.). In a nonjury case, the trial court can grant a motion for

judgment on either legal-sufficiency or factual-sufficiency grounds. Qantel Bus. Sys., Inc.

v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 304 (Tex. 1988). Here, the Department moved

for judgment on the basis that “we haven’t heard any evidence that says that the

Department does not have a good faith belief to believe that it would be in the best

interests of this child to remain where he’s at.” In other words, the Department

moved for judgment on the basis of the legal insufficiency of the evidence. See Parks v.

Migl, No. 13-22-00208-CV, 2023 WL 7860792, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg Nov. 16, 2023, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (noting that a claim that no evidence

supports a verdict is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence).

       On appeal, the Hamiltons argue that they established as a matter of law the

Department’s lack of good cause. See Cath. Diocese of El Paso v. Porter, 622 S.W.3d 824,

834 (Tex. 2021) (stating that when an appellant attacks the legal sufficiency of an

adverse finding on an issue on which the appellant had the burden of proof, the

appellant must demonstrate on appeal that the evidence establishes, as a matter of

law, all vital facts in support of the issue). Accordingly, in our review, we must first

examine the record for evidence that supports the finding, while ignoring all evidence

                                            14
to the contrary. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001). If no

evidence supports the finding, then we will examine the entire record to determine if

the contrary position is established as a matter of law. Id. We will sustain the issue

only if the contrary position is conclusively established. Id. Evidence conclusively

establishes a fact when the evidence leaves “no room for ordinary minds to differ as

to the conclusion to be drawn from it.” Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Lufkin Indus., LLC,

573 S.W.3d 224, 235 (Tex. 2019) (quoting Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors

& Supply Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (1982)).

       Regarding the motion to vacate, we review the denial of such a motion for

abuse of discretion. Cornerstone Alternatives, Inc. v. Patterson Oldsmobile-GMC-Toyota, Inc.,

696 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985, no writ). A trial court abuses its

discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles—that is, if its

act is arbitrary or unreasonable. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Cire v.

Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838–39 (Tex. 2004). A trial court also abuses its discretion

by ruling without supporting evidence. Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573,

578 (Tex. 2012). But no abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court decides based

on conflicting evidence, so long as some substantive and probative evidence supports

its decision. Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009); Butnaru v.

Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002) (op. on reh’g).

                                             15
II. Application

      The only factual basis on which the Hamiltons argue lack of good cause is the

fact that they have adopted Jacob’s siblings. They assert that federal and state law and

Department policy all prioritize placing a child with the child’s siblings when possible.

Under the circumstances of this case, their evidence was insufficient to show a lack of

good cause.

      The federal law on which the Hamiltons rely is part of the Adoption Assistance

and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 670–679c, which “provid[es] for the

appropriation of money to be paid by the federal government to the states for certain

children who are placed outside their homes, in foster homes or elsewhere.” In re

T.A.W., 234 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied)

(Frost, J., concurring) (citing 42 U.S.C.A. § 670). That Act was amended in 2008 by

the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Pub. L.

No. 110–351, 122 Stat 3949 (2008). As amended, one section of the Act provides that

for a state to be eligible for payments, the state must have a plan that “provides that

reasonable efforts shall be made” to place siblings in the same placement unless the

state “documents that such a joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-

being of any of the siblings.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 671(a)(31). For siblings who are not

placed together, the plan must “provide for frequent visitation or other ongoing

interaction between the siblings” unless the state “documents that frequent visitation

or other ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of

                                           16
the siblings.” 7 However, the statute does not compel states to place siblings together,

see id., and “[s]tates receive funding if they comply on a systemwide basis—even if not

in some individual case.” Families A Through V v. DeSantis, 658 F.Supp.3d 1063,

1071 (N.D. Fla. 2023, order).

      Like federal law, Texas law prioritizes placing siblings together. Texas Family

Code Section 262.114(d) provides that when deciding on a placement for a child, the

Department “shall give preference to persons in the following order: (1) a person

related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption; (2) a person with whom the child

has a long-standing and significant relationship; (3) a foster home; and (4) a general

residential operation.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.114(d).

      Further, the Department’s policy handbook states that a family who has

adopted a child’s siblings must be considered for placement of the child and given

preference. See Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., Child Protective Services

Handbook,    §   4114.14,    https://www.dfps.texas.gov/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS

_pg_4000.asp#CPS_4114_14; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 264.751 (defining the

terms “relative,” “relative caregiver,” and “designated caregiver”). The Hamiltons also

cite the Department’s foster child “Bill of Rights,” which informs foster children that

      7
        The Hamiltons do not raise any complaints about the frequency or lack of
interaction between the children. See, e.g., Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs.,
Child Protective Services Handbook, § 4114.2, https:// www.dfps. texas. gov/
handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_4000.asp#CPS_4114_2; cf. Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 153.551 (providing that the sibling of a child who is separated from the child
because of the Department’s action may file suit requesting access to the child).

                                          17
they have the right to live with their siblings in foster care, if possible, and if they are

not living with their siblings, to know why. See Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective

Servs., No. 2530, Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care, https://www.dfps.texas.gov

/Child_Protection/Foster_Care/Childrens_Rights.asp; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 263.008(b)(6) (providing that it is the state’s policy that a child in foster care be

informed of the child’s rights relating to placement with the child’s siblings and

contact with the child’s family members). “If there are no safety or other compelling

reasons why [a foster child] cannot live with [his or her] siblings, it is [the]

caseworker’s job to try and find a home where [the child] can live with [his or her]

siblings.” Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care, https://www.dfps.texas.gov/

Child_Protection/Foster_Care/Childrens_Rights.asp. The Hamiltons argue that

based on the above provisions, “[t]he clear legislative intent and public policy

reflected in these documents is that keeping siblings together in termination-adoption

proceedings is in their best interest absent extreme circumstances otherwise.”

       The Hamiltons are correct that federal and state law, as well as Department

guidance, reflect a policy that the Department should make efforts to keep siblings

together when possible. However, while federal legislation encourages—and

Department policy requires—the Department to make reasonable efforts to place

siblings together, none of the laws or policies they cite requires keeping siblings

together in all circumstances. Cf. In re Row, No. 319389, 2014 WL 2881148, at

*7 (Mich. Ct. App. June 24, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (noting that 42 U.S.C.A.

                                            18
§ 671(a)(31) does not require a state to place siblings together under all possible

circumstances). Likewise, Texas Family Code Section 262.114(d) requires giving

placement preference to persons related to the child by blood or adoption, but it does

not mandate placement of a child with the child’s siblings, and it does not mandate

moving a child from the only home the child has known if the child’s siblings’

adoptive or foster parents decide at some point that they want the child. Further, in

making placement decisions, the Department should consider other relevant

circumstances in addition to sibling placement.8 See Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective

Servs., Child Protective Services Handbook, §§ 4113–14, https://www.dfps.texas.gov/

handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_4000.asp#CPS_4113 (listing information that the

caseworker must consider before making a placement, including the biological

parents’ recommendations and the substitute caregiver’s circumstances).

      Here, although the Hamiltons point to Lilly’s testimony that the Department

did not offer Jacob’s placement to the Hamiltons, Lilly admitted that out of concern

for the siblings, she and her husband did not want to take Jacob when he was first

taken into the Department’s care. Even after they adopted Jacob’s siblings, the

      8
        The Hamiltons do not discuss in their brief the fact that the Department
considers the Kents to be fictive kin, which would make the Kents a preferred
placement option. See, e.g., Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs, Placement Process
Resource Guide 18 (Mar. 2023), https://www.dfps.texas.gov/handbooks/
CPS/Resource_Guides/Placement_Process_Resource_Guide.pdf (stating that “[t]he
general order of preference for placement with relatives and other connections” is
first non-custodial parents, then “[r]elatives and fictive kin” and “[o]ther connections”
such as “families who have adopted the child’s siblings”).

                                           19
Hamiltons did not ask the Department to place Jacob with them. Although Lilly

testified that she had contacted a caseworker about arranging a visit with Jacob, there

is nothing in the record to show that she informed the Department that she and her

husband wanted to and were ready to take him until he was over five months old.

Further, Ross testified that the Kents, as fictive kin and the family that Mother

requested for placement, were also a prioritized placement for Jacob.

      The Hamiltons argue that they understood that the Kents would be a bridge

placement, and from Lily’s testimony, the Hamiltons appeared to believe that they and

the Kents could decide among themselves who would have custody of Jacob.

However, neither the Hamiltons nor the Kents were managing conservators of Jacob

with the authority to decide where Jacob would live. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 153.371 (listing the rights of the Department when appointed as a child’s managing

conservator, including the right to designate the child’s primary residence). There is

nothing in the record to indicate that the Department had agreed to uproot Jacob and

move him to the Hamiltons at any point that the Hamiltons decided they wanted him.

Lilly testified that based on a conversation with one of the previous caseworkers, she

believed that the caseworker understood that the Hamiltons would eventually be

given placement of Jacob, but there was no evidence of what the caseworker told

Lilly, and Lilly’s testimony was not evidence that the caseworker had agreed to that

plan or had the authority to authorize it. Further, the dispute in this case is not over

whether the Department was fair to the Hamiltons in making its placement decision.

                                          20
The issue is whether the Hamiltons proved that the Department had no good cause to

refuse consent for their adoption of Jacob. Although the testimony about the

Department’s placement decision and the Hamiltons’ interest in Jacob was relevant to

a consideration of whether the Hamiltons would be enthusiastic parents to Jacob

going forward, the testimony does not prove that the Department did not believe in

good faith that Jacob would be better off staying in his current home.

      The Hamiltons introduced evidence that they are good parents to the siblings

and that, consequently, Jacob could potentially do well in their care despite the

adverse effect that moving him would have, but they introduced no evidence that he

is not already doing well in his current home. They did not produce evidence that the

Kents have not been good caregivers to Jacob or that Jacob has some special needs

that the Kents are unable to meet. The Kents’ home was the only home that Jacob

has ever known, 9 he is doing well in their care, and the Hamiltons’ expert

acknowledged that if Jacob has formed secure attachments to the Kents, he would be

“absolutely devastate[d]” by being moved from their care. Ross testified that Jacob is

“very bonded” to the Kents and is doing well in their home. On this record, even if

      9
         We do not hold that the Department always has good cause to deny adoption
of a young child by prospective adoptive parents when the child has been in someone
else’s care for most of the child’s life. We merely recognize that a child’s attachment
to their current placement and maintaining a stable placement are matters that the
Department may consider, among others, in deciding whether to grant consent. See,
e.g., Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (considering the stability of
the home in evaluating the child’s best interest). Here, the only basis on which the
Hamiltons argue a lack of good cause is their having custody of Jacob’s siblings.

                                          21
the Department should have but did not offer the Hamiltons placement of Jacob, and

even if they would have accepted placement if offered, their having adopted the

siblings is not enough to show as a matter of law that the Department had no good-

faith reason to believe that refusing consent was in Jacob’s best interest. See In re

B.L.R., 592 S.W.3d 453, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (holding

that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellants’ adoption petition

because some evidence supported a finding that it was not unreasonable for the

Department to withhold its consent); Chapman, 561 S.W.2d at 267 (noting that

managing conservator has good cause to not consent when it has good-faith belief

that child’s best interest requires withholding consent).

      The Hamiltons reference M.J.P. as a case in which a trial court granted a waiver

of consent, and they state that “[i]n that case, the Department had failed to conduct a

home study that had been promised, and [it] had made decisions about placement

before the home studies had even been done.” However, that case involved a married

couple, and the child had lived with the couple for eighteen months and had bonded

with them. No. 04-16-00124-CV, 2016 WL 7234041, at *1, *3, *10 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio Dec. 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). The child’s permanency plan was for the

couple to adopt the child, but before the adoption took place, the husband filed for

divorce. Id. at *1. The Department granted consent for the husband to adopt and

denied consent to the wife. Id. After a trial, the trial court waived the consent

requirement and granted the wife’s adoption petition, based on the child having

                                           22
bonded with the wife and other considerations. Id. Here, Jacob has only lived with the

Kents. Further, Lily testified that the Department had conducted a home study, and

there was evidence from which the trial court could find that the Hamiltons did not

want to take Jacob when he came into care.

       Finally, the Hamiltons argue that allowing them to adopt Jacob was in his best

interest. See Chapman, 561 S.W.2d at 267 (requiring finding that waiver of consent is in

child’s best interest before waiver may be granted); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 153.002 (“The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of

the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to

the child.”). Again, however, they rely only on the fact that they adopted the siblings.

They cite Texas Family Code Section 263.307(b)(13), which states that “in

determining whether the child’s parents are willing and able to provide the child with

a safe environment,” the trial court should consider the factors listed in that section,

including “whether an adequate social support system consisting of an extended

family and friends is available to the child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(13).

They argue that “[s]eparating siblings is contrary to this factor because siblings . . . are

one of the closest social support systems [that] people have” and that not placing

Jacob with his siblings “has the effect of separating the siblings from their closest

familial social support system.”

       The Hamiltons do not address any of the other best-interest factors in that

section and do not address other ways—such as visitation and other interactions—

                                            23
that siblings and other relatives can provide a social support system to a child.

Additionally, they presented no evidence that Jacob does not currently have a good

social support system. Further, we point out that Section 263.307 states that “the

prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to

be in the child’s best interest.” Id. § 263.307(a).

       We agree with the Hamiltons that, in line with the statutes and policies they

have cited, the Department should, as a general rule, attempt to place siblings

together. However, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the

Hamiltons proved as a matter of law that the Department’s denial of consent is

contrary to Jacob’s best interest.

       On this record, the Hamiltons did not establish as a matter of law a lack of

good cause, and the trial court had some evidence on which to deny their motion to

vacate. Because the Hamiltons failed to meet their burden, we cannot say that the trial

court erred or abused its discretion by granting the motion for judgment, signing the

Order, and denying the Hamiltons’ motion to vacate. 10 We therefore overrule the

Hamiltons’ issues.

       10
         In the Hamiltons’ motion to vacate, they argued among other things that
because the Kents were licensed as a foster family, they could not qualify as either a
“designated caregiver” or a “relative caregiver” under Family Code Section 264.751 so
as to “supersede the federal and state requirements that the Department make good
faith efforts to place the child with family and to keep siblings together.” They further
argued that the trial court erred by excluding Dr. McKenzie’s export report, which
opined on the interactions that he had observed between the Hamiltons and Jacob
and which the trial court had excluded on the basis that it had not been timely

                                             24
                                       Conclusion

       Having overruled the Hamiltons’ issues, we affirm the trial court’s order.

                                                        /s/ Mike Wallach
                                                        Mike Wallach
                                                        Justice

Delivered: January 11, 2024

provided to the Department. The Hamiltons do not make these arguments on appeal,
and we therefore do not address them. Even if we considered the arguments,
however, our disposition would not change because we do not base our holding on
whether the Hamiltons are good parents—the Department did not dispute the
Hamiltons’ parenting abilities, and the trial court admitted Dr. McKenzie’s testimony
on that point—and the fact that the Kents had had a foster license at some point did
not necessarily prevent them from being considered fictive relatives. See, e.g., In re D.S.,
No. 02-15-00350-CV, 2016 WL 1267808, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 31,
2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.N.Q., No. 04-17-00089-CV, 2017 WL 2791286, at
*2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re A.A.,
No. 01-13-00542-CV, 2013 WL 6569922, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec.
12, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Further, as we have said, whether the Hamiltons
should have had priority for Jacob’s placement is not determinative of the good-cause
issue. Thus, these grounds did not demonstrate that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying their motion.

                                            25