in Re Rosemary Margenau

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 10, 2015
Docket01-15-00776-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Rosemary Margenau (in Re Rosemary Margenau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Rosemary Margenau, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-15-00776-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/10/2015 12:09:44 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

01-15-00776-CV No. FILED IN IN THE COURT OF 1st APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/10/2015 12:09:44 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

In re Rosemary Margenau, Relator § FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT

§

§ HOUSTON, TEXAS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Meyers /s/ Alison J. Alison J. Meyers Attorney for Relator State Bar No.2 24041477 1601 Westheimer Rd. Houston, Texas 77006 Ph.: 713-859-9271 Fax: 1-888-845-2889 ameyersflameverslawxom Identity of the Parties and Counsel

The following is a list of all parties and all counsel who have appeared in

this matter:

Relator: Rosemary Margenau Attorney for Relator in the trial court: Alison J. Meyers, 1601 Westheimer, Houston, Texas 77006, State Bar No. 24041477

Respondent: Honorable John Phillips

Real Party in Interest: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services in the trial Attorney for Texas Department of Family and Protective Services court: Marc 1019 Congress, 15”‘ floor, Ritter, Houston, Texas 77002, State Bar No. 1 695 1 500

Real Party in Interest: George Margenau Attorney for George Margenau in the trial court: Juliane Phillips, P.O.Box 10151, Houston, Texas 77026, State Bar No. 24000653

Real Party in Interest K. B. H. and K. M. R. Attorney Ad Litem in the trial court: Patrick Shelton,3600 Montrose, Ste 104, Houston, Texas, 77006, State Bar No 18208900 Table of Contents

Index of Authorities:

In re Cochran, 151 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2004)

In re Tonya Allen, 359 S.W.3d (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2012)

Texas Constitution

Texas Family Code

Texas Government Code

1. Statement of the Case

II. Statement of Jurisdiction

III. Issue Presented

IV. Statement of Facts

V. Argument

VI. Prayer

Appendices The following documents are attached to this petition and

incorporated in it for all purposes.

1.Certified Copy of “Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing dated August 26, 2015 signed by Respondent in Cause No. 2015—04673J.

2.Reporter’s Record Volume 1 ofl Volumes in Cause No. 2015-04673} prepared and certified by Julia M. Range], 314"‘ Court Reporter.

3. Supplemental Reporter’s Record Volume 1 of 1 Volumes prepared and certified by Julia M. Rangel, 314"‘ Court Reporter Statement of the Case

1. The underlying suit is a petition for protection of a child for

conservatorship, and for termination of the parent—child relationship.

2. Respondent is Honorable John Phillips, Judge of the 314"‘

Judicial Court of Harris County, Texas whose address is 1200 Congress, 5”‘ floor,

Houston, Texas 77006.

3. Evidence was factually and legally insufficient to support

the Real Party in Interest, Department of Family and Protective Services (the

“Department”), being named Temporary Managing Conservator of the children.

Statement of Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under section

6 of article V of the Texas Constitution and section 22221 (a), (b) of the Texas

Government Code.

Issue Presented

lssue No. 1: Respondent abused his discretion in denying Relator’s request to have the children returned home and naming the Department temporary managing conservator of the children because evidence presented at the adversary hearing was factually and legally insufficient pursuant to sectior 262.201 of the Texas Family Code. Statement of Facts

On or about August 6, 2015, the Department filed an Original Petition

for Protection of a Child for Conservatorship, and for Termination in Suit

Affecting the Parent—Child Relationship and Application for Writ of Attachment as

to K. B. H. and K. M. R., and subsequently removed the children from their home

and their parents’ possession.

On August 25, 2015 in Cause No. 2015-2015-04673J Respondent held the

adversary hearing required by Section 262.201 of the Texas Family Code.

Testimony from the Depa1tment’s investigator, Danitra Fields-Frazier, indicated

that the reasons for the children coming into care included outcries from both

children alleging sexual abuse, and Relator’s refusal to cooperate with the

Department. (Rep0rter’s Record at 4-5; 11) The investigator testified that prior to

filing the original petition, a “Safety Plan” was developed that required one of the

alleged perpetrators, Troy Ready, to leave the home. (Reporter’s Record at 9-10.)

The “Safety Plan” did not include a date and time certain for the children to

participate in a forensic interview at the Children’s Assessment Center (“CAC”).

(Repo1ter’s Record at 10)

Danitra Fields-Frazier testified that to her knowledge Troy Ready was

no longer living in the home as required by the Safety Plan. (Reporter’s Record at

10) Testimony regarding Relator’s refusal to cooperate with the Department included allegations that the investigator made calls and left voice messages which

were unanswered by Relator. (Reporter’s Record at 11). Additionally, the

investigator testified that attempts were made to visit the children in the home.

(Reporter’s Record at 11). The children were scheduled for a forensic interview at

the CAC. (Reporter’s Record at 5) However, they were not brought to CAC by the Relator for the interviews because the Relator believed the case to be closed.

(Reporter’s Record at 5)

Since coming into the care of the Department, K. B. H. has

participated in a forensic interview at the CAC. (Reporter’s Record at 10) An extended assessment is not required and the Department is recommending that the

child participate in a psychological assessment (Reporter’s Record at 10) K. M. R.

was hospitalized to evaluate her mental stability and is currently placed in a

Residential Treatment Central. (Reporter’s Record at 7-8) As of August 25, 2015

K. M. R. had not participated in a forensic interview. (Reporter’s Record at 10).

Relator requested that the children be returned to their home.

(Repo1ter’s Record at 20)

At the conclusion of the hearing Respondent made no rendition

regarding his orders or findings regarding the requests of Relator and the

Department. (Reporter’s Record at 26) Respondent merely set the next hearing for

this case. (Reporter’s Record at 26) Argument

A full adversary hearing was held on August 25, 2015. The purpose

of the full adversary hearing is to determine if the Department will be named

Temporary Managing Conservator of the child. Texas Family Code Section

262.201(b) sets out the burden the Department must show in order to be named

Temporary Managing Conservator of the child:

(1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child;

(2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child’s removal; and

(3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Cochran
151 S.W.3d 275 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
In Re Allen
359 S.W.3d 284 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Rosemary Margenau, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosemary-margenau-texapp-2015.