Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Submitted on September 11, 2019
On
Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 18-05-06835-CV.
Before
McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEANNE
JOHNSON Justice.
After a
bench trial, Appellant Father appeals from a judgment
terminating his parental rights to his eight-year-old
daughter, A.H.[1] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
161.001(b)(1)(F), (N), (O), (2) (West Supp. 2018). Father was
represented by counsel at the termination proceeding but
Father did not testify. In three issues, Father challenges
the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial
court's termination of his parental rights under Family
Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(F), (N), and (O).[2] We affirm the
trial court's judgment.
Background
CPS
Investigator Tara Bauch testified that she investigated
allegations of "neglectful supervision due to the fact
that the mother was found deceased in the hotel room with
[A.H.]" In her Affidavit in Support of Removal admitted
into evidence, Bauch stated that upon her arrival to the
hotel on May 25, 2018, EMS was administering CPR on
A.H.'s mother. A police officer told Bauch that EMS
suspected A.H.'s cause of death to be alcohol poisoning
or a heart attack. According to Bauch, she spoke with A.H.
and learned that she and her mother had traveled from
Oklahoma to visit A.H.'s brother for his high school
graduation. A.H. informed Bauch that her grandparents died
and she last saw her father two years ago when he choked her
mother. A.H.'s brother told Bauch that he was unaware of
any living relatives on his mother's side of the family.
Bauch spoke to one of A.H.'s mother's friends who
provided Father's name, and the friend stated that Father
was abusive towards A.H.'s mother and was likely in jail.
Bauch concluded that it was in A.H.'s interest for the
Department of Family and Protective Services ("the
Department") to be named A.H.'s Temporary Managing
Conservator as the Department had made reasonable efforts to
prevent or alleviate the need for A.H.'s removal,
A.H.'s father had not been found, her mother was
deceased, and there was no information regarding relatives to
contact. Bauch testified that on the day of removal, A.H. was
placed in the same home as her older brother, with whom she
was comfortable and had previously lived. According to Bauch,
A.H. was still placed in the same home at the time of trial.
Bauch
testified that, on the Tuesday after A.H. was removed, Bauch
met Father, A.H.'s paternal grandmother (R.B.), and
A.H.'s paternal great grandmother, who lived in Oklahoma
and wanted to take A.H. home with them. Bauch testified that
she did not initially set up visitation with A.H. and Father
because "the child did not want to visit because the
last time she saw [Father] he was choking her mom." When
asked whether any police reports or other documentation
corroborated the alleged choking incident, Bauch responded
that although there was no criminal history or documentation
of the incident, "[t]he family has multiple CPS cases
out of the State of Oklahoma, and domestic violence is a part
of one of those and drug use."
CPS
Supervisor Latasha Hickman testified that she was assigned to
the case "[s]ince the beginning[]" and that
Father's service plan ordered Father to participate in
"[s]ubstance abuse assessment, individual counseling,
psychological, parenting, [and to] maintain contact with the
Department." According to Hickman, the Department made
attempts to contact Father, but Father did not contact the
Department at any time for visitation. She explained that
when the Department would attempt to contact Father,
Father's mother would stop the phone calls, and the
Department had not had any contact with Father in the past
year. Hickman clarified that visits for A.H. and Father
required a recommendation from the therapist. According to
Hickman, the Department talked to the therapist about
contact, but the therapist did not recommend any contact
because "[t]he child doesn't want any contact with
her father." Hickman testified that Father did not visit
A.H. at all or provide financial support to the Department
for her care during the pendency of the case. Hickman further
testified that Father did not demonstrate the ability to
provide a safe and stable environment for A.H. and Father did
not participate in any of the court-ordered services. Hickman
testified that if a parent lives out-of-state, services are
provided for the parent in Texas, but if the parent does not
come to Texas for services then the parent bears the cost of
services.
Hickman
had no knowledge whether an acknowledgement of Father's
paternity had been located, and she did not know whether A.H.
lived with Father for at least two years after her birth.
According to Hickman, A.H. had not asked to see her Father
during the case, and to Hickman's knowledge, A.H. did not
have a relationship with her Father and had not seen him for
"three or four years [][, ] [p]ossibly more."
Hickman testified that to her knowledge, the caseworker
mailed Father a copy of the service plan, Father was aware of
where A.H. was placed, and Father never asked that A.H. be
placed with him. According to Hickman, Father did not contact
anyone at CPS about how to set up his services.
Hickman
testified that she visited A.H. in her current placement on
one occasion and that A.H. is doing well in the home with her
half-brother. Hickman explained that she believed termination
of Father's parental rights is in A.H.'s best
interests because Father has "failed to show that he has
any interest in the well[-]being and safety of [A.H., ] has
not made any contact or efforts to contact the Department[,
and] has not show[n] any interest in [A.H.]"
The
court-appointed special advocate (CASA) testified that she
has visited with A.H. monthly since being assigned to the
case in June of 2017. According to the CASA, when she first
visited A.H., the child's emotional state was fragile.
The CASA testified that there were no visitations between
A.H. and Father or any of the grandparents during the
pendency of the case. The CASA testified she had no contact
with Father and tried once to call the contact number for him
but "the phone number just, it rang . . . didn't
receive voice mail message or anything[.]" According to
the CASA, Father was present in court on June 6th and
available by phone at the July 23rd status hearing. The CASA
testified that Father and A.H.'s paternal grandmother did
not attend the permanency conference although the CASA
believed they received notice of the hearing. The CASA
testified that Father's services were court-ordered at
the July 23rd status hearing that Father attended by phone
and that Father never filed anything to ask the court to
amend his services or to ask for visitation. The CASA
testified that, for as long as she has been assigned to the
case, A.H. has not mentioned her paternal grandmother, and
the paternal grandmother has not visited with A.H. The CASA
testified that she provided Father her contact information on
the day she was assigned the case and he has never contacted
her.
The
CASA testified that A.H. was placed with her
half-brother's family. According to the CASA, A.H.'s
mother was also the half-brother's mother. The CASA
testified that A.H. appeared to have a close relationship
with her half-brother. According to the CASA, A.H. has been
doing "really well" in her current placement over
the last year, and the CASA's recommendation is for
adoption of A.H. by the half-brother's family. The CASA
testified that A.H. has not asked to see Father, she has no
relationship with her Father, and the last time she saw
Father was "three or four years ago[, ] [p]ossibly
more." The CASA testified that she believed that
termination of Father's parental rights is in A.H.'s
best interest. The CASA indicated that Father has not met the
court's requirements to get access to A.H. According to
the CASA, "[A.H.] does not want to see him. She has a
very traumatic memory of [Father]. . . . So, she prefers not
to see him because of that." The CASA testified that at
each visit with A.H., she asked A.H. if she wanted to see her
paternal grandmother and she stated she did not. The CASA
testified that she hopes that A.H. is adopted by her current
placement family because A.H. is "very happy[]"
there and is "adjusting very well."
The
trial court found clear and convincing evidence of prohibited
predicate acts under Texas Family Code sections
161.001(b)(1)(F), (N), and (O), and the trial court found
that termination was in the best interest of the child.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ยง 161.001(b)(1)(F),
(N), ...