From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re K.C.W.

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Feb 8, 2018
No. 11-17-00215-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)

Opinion

No. 11-17-00215-CV

02-08-2018

IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.W. AND T.R.W., CHILDREN


On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C46884

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court entered an order in which it terminated the parental rights of the parents of K.C.W. and T.R.W. The mother filed an appeal. On appeal, she presents a single issue in which she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's best interest finding. We affirm.

I. Termination: Best Interest

Appellant argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of her children. Termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b) (West Supp. 2017). To determine on appeal 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).

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. FAM. § 161.001(b). In this case, the trial court found that Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the children. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(O). Appellant does not challenge this finding, but she does challenge the trial court's finding that termination is in the children's best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Accordingly, we will uphold the order of termination if the evidence is sufficient to support the best interest finding.

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 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.

The Department originally became involved with the children in this case when Appellant's youngest child was removed from her care after an incident of domestic violence between her and her husband, C.H. At that time, K.C.W., T.R.W., and their older brother went to live with their father. Subsequently, however, the father was arrested for choking T.R.W., who was then three years old, during some sort of altercation between Appellant and the father over T.R.W. The children were then placed with one of Appellant's friends. However, Appellant continued to violate the safety plan, and the children were removed and placed in foster care in January 2016. In March 2016, the children were placed together in the home of relatives: a paternal cousin and the cousin's spouse. The children remained in that home at the time of the final hearing in June 2017.

The older brother turned eighteen while this case was pending and, therefore, was not included as a party in the termination order.

The evidence at trial was undisputed that, while this case was pending, Appellant did not comply with the provisions of her court-ordered service plan. Among other things, she failed to regularly visit her children, to maintain stable housing, to maintain steady employment, and to stay in contact with the Department. Appellant admitted that she had been addicted to prescription pain medication for eleven years. She attempted to overcome that addiction during the pendency of this case; she testified that she had attended two different rehab programs. During much of the eighteen months that this case was pending, Appellant was homeless, at times living in her van, homeless shelters, or various motel rooms. Appellant testified that, several months before the final hearing, she reunited with C.H. and moved in with him and his family. She testified that there was plenty of room in that home for K.C.W. and T.R.W., that the children were welcome in that home, and that C.H. was voluntarily addressing the "family violence issue."

During the final hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the contents of its file and the prior proceedings in this cause. At the hearing that occurred about four months prior to the final hearing, the conservatorship worker testified that the Department's goal for the children was relative adoption. The conservatorship worker believed that to be in the best interest of the children. Documents in the court's file indicate that the placement family is willing to be a long-term placement and to adopt the children.

By all accounts, the children were doing well and had blossomed while in the home of the placement family. The children had bonded with the placement family. At the time of the final hearing, even though the eighteen-year-old had graduated from high school, he was still living in the placement relatives' home with his siblings while waiting to report to the Navy. The children's guardian ad litem, a CASA volunteer, reported that he had been on the case since the beginning and that he was concerned about returning the children to Appellant; he pointed out that Appellant had not visited the children very often and that Appellant's husband, with whom she lived, had been convicted of family violence. According to the guardian ad litem, K.C.W. and T.R.W. are very happy in the placement family's home and want to stay there. The guardian ad litem recommended that the parental rights of both parents be terminated.

Based upon the Holley factors and the evidence in the record, we cannot hold that the trial court's best interest finding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72. The trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that it would be in each child's best interest for Appellant's parental rights to be terminated. We hold that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's best interest finding. We overrule Appellant's sole issue on appeal.

II. This Court's Ruling

We affirm the trial court's order of termination.

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE February 8, 2018 Panel consists of: Willson, J.,
Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.


Summaries of

In re K.C.W.

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Feb 8, 2018
No. 11-17-00215-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)
Case details for

In re K.C.W.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.W. AND T.R.W., CHILDREN

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 8, 2018

Citations

No. 11-17-00215-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)