Court Opinion

ID: 9411607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 08:11:50.882446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:31.149970
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-23-00127-CV

                   IN THE INTEREST OF Y.S. AND E.S., CHILDREN

                       On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                                   Randall County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 80003-L1, Honorable Jack Graham, Presiding

                                      July 24, 2023
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       The father of YS and ES appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental

rights and naming mother the sole managing conservator of the children. Through his

sole issue, he contends the evidence presented below was legally and factually

insufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the

best interests of his children. We affirm.

       Background

       At the time of the final hearing, YS was almost seven years old, and ES was

nearly three. Mother appeared; father did not.
       The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with

the family when ES tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of her birth.

Testing on the mother, father, and YS also indicated the presence of methamphetamine

in their systems. The children were placed with their maternal grandmother, and the

parents were to have only Department-supervised visits.          On one occasion, a

Department employee visited the grandmother’s home.        She found the mother and

father hiding in a closet. The children were then removed from the grandmother’s care.

       Subsequently, the parents were given a service plan setting forth requirements to

secure return of the children to their care. Mother completed all services, and the

children were returned to her. The caseworker told the court they were doing “very well”

in her care.

       On the other hand, father was jailed during various periods of the case, as

charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon pended

against him. While so jailed, he completed no services, though some were available.

During the months father was not jailed, he again failed to complete the services

required of him. Nor did he address the issues that led to the removal of the children,

i.e., drug use and domestic violence.

       Evidence revealed that YS witnessed acts of domestic violence. They included

seeing father choke, kick, and push mother. So too did he see father hold scissors to

mother’s neck. This was “traumatic” to him.

       Those present at the final hearing opined it was in the children’s best interests

that father’s rights be terminated, and mother be named sole managing conservator.

                                           2
The trial court agreed by terminating father’s parental rights under Family Code section

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and finding termination was in the children’s best interest.

         Analysis

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

termination cases are well-established and described in In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256

(Tex. 2002) and In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014). We apply them here.

         Next, a determination of best interest necessitates a focus on the children, not

the parent. In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d 571, 585 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020, pet. denied).

Appellate courts examine the entire record to decide what is in the best interest of the

children. Id.; In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013). Furthermore, there is a

strong presumption that it is in their best interest to preserve the parent-child

relationship. In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d at 585; In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex.

2006).

         In examining the record, courts consider the various non-exclusive factors

itemized in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). They also guide our

decision here.      The Department need not prove all of them especially when the

evidence illustrates that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the children.

In re C.T.E., 95 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)

(quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002)). Moreover, evidence supporting one

or more statutory grounds for termination may also reflect on the children’s best

interests. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249-50. That said, we turn to the evidentiary

record at bar.

                                             3
        Unlike mother, father had not addressed his drug use. Again, all members of the

family tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of ES’s birth. Moreover, father

had not attended NA meetings or sought other means of treatment while in or out of

prison. So too did he complete only a nominal number of random drug screens during

his six months out of jail and admitted to using marijuana during the pendency of the

case.    While he suggests in his brief that his stay in prison provides a “strong

foundation” for remaining sober, there was no evidence that he remained sober or drug-

free.

        Additionally, father was jailed during various periods while the termination suit

pended, and accusations against him of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon awaited disposition. Other evidence illustrated that father had yet

to address his history of domestic violence. And, as described earlier, the elder child

witnessed his acts of violence. So witnessing them was “traumatic” to YS; despite that,

father failed to complete any courses or services to address his violent tendencies. This

is of concern since the children’s best interests do not include continued exposure to

domestic violence. See In re T.S., No. 07-19-00260-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10633,

at *9 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting continued exposure

to domestic violence and drug abuse are circumstances supporting a determination that

termination of the parent-child relationship is in the children’s best interest).

        As for compliance with the service plan, mother completed the requirements

assigned her. Upon her doing so, she regained possession of the children, and they

were doing “very well” in her care, according to the caseworker. On the other hand,

father completed none.      In re K.J.C., Nos. 07-18-00395-CV, 07-18-00400-CV, 2019

                                              4
Tex. App. LEXIS 1429, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 26, 2019, pet. denied) (mem.

op.) (among other things, failure to comply with the family service plan supports a

finding that termination is in the best interest of the children).      Nor did he opt to

participate in the final hearing as a means of voicing his interest in and the continuation

of the parental relationship with his children.

       In short, ample evidence existed permitting a fact finder to form a firm conviction

or belief that termination of father’s parental rights served the best interests of the

children. So, legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding

to that effect. Accordingly, we overrule the issue before us and affirm the order of

termination.

                                                        Brian Quinn
                                                        Chief Justice

                                              5