Opinion
No. 04-05-00108-CV
Delivered and Filed: September 14, 2005.
Appeal from the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2004-PA-00281, Honorable John J. Specia, Jr., Judge Presiding.
The Honorable John J. Specia, Jr. approved the recommendation of Associate Judge Peter Sakai who presided over the termination proceeding and the hearing on appellant's statement of appellate points.
Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ruthie Van Zandt appeals the trial court's determination that an appeal of the order terminating her parental rights would be frivolous. Van Zandt intended to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the grounds for termination and the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance. This court ordered this appeal to be submitted on the record without briefing. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405 (g) (Vernon 2002).
An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. De La Vega v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 974 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (en banc). In determining whether an appeal is frivolous, the trial court may consider whether the appellant has presented a substantial question for appellate review. Id. A trial court's determination that an appeal is frivolous is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id.
On the day of trial, Van Zandt filed a motion for continuance asserting that it would be in the children's best interest for the court to allow her additional time to complete the requirements of the court-ordered service plan. The State argued that Van Zandt had not shown satisfactory commitment to her drug treatment program and that there was no indication that a continuance for a few months would provide any impetus for a change in the State's recommendation that Van Zandt's parental rights be terminated. The trial court heard the argument of the parties, denied the motion, and ordered the case to trial.
In its termination order, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Van Zandt had knowingly placed or allowed her children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional well-being, had engaged in conduct or knowingly placed her children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered their physical or emotional well-being, failed to comply with the provisions of her court-ordered service plan, and used drugs in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the children and then failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program. The court further found that termination was in the children's best interest. The trial court also entered findings of fact and conclusions of law which support both the court's decision on termination and the denial of Van Zandt's motion for continuance.
At the hearing on the statement of appellate points, Van Zandt did not attack any of the trial court's findings or conclusions, nor did she summarize for the trial court where evidence was missing or insufficient to sustain the trial court's decision. See In re A.M.R., No. 04-03-00335-CV, 2003 WL 21467518, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio June 25, 2003, no pet.). Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that an appeal of the order terminating Van Zandt's parental rights would be frivolous. The trial court's order is affirmed.