In the Interest of B.P.-R., a Child v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of B.P.-R., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of B.P.-R., a Child v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00228-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B.P.-R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 69th District Court Dallam County, Texas Trial Court No. 12814-A, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding
January 21, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
In this parental rights case, Appellant “Michelle,”1 appeals from a jury’s finding that
she endangered the physical and emotional well-being of her daughter, “Bella.” In two
issues, Michelle argues the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the
endangerment finding and that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting her
possession and access to Bella. We affirm.
1 To protect the privacy of the parties and the child, we use pseudonyms. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). BACKGROUND
Four weeks after Bella was born, the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services received a report about Michelle and her five children. The intake detailed
domestic violence by two men: “David,” father of the four oldest children, and “Miguel,”
Michelle’s current boyfriend and Bella’s alleged father. David had allegedly hit the
children with an extension cord, leaving scars on their backs. Miguel had allegedly
assaulted Michelle.
Michelle is a Guatemalan immigrant who speaks only K’iche and Spanish.
Because of the language barrier and the potential danger posed by Miguel, the
caseworker brought a Spanish-speaking police officer to the initial visit. They had no plan
to remove the children that day.
At the home, Michelle was asked repeatedly whether anyone else was present or
living there. She said no. The caseworker was allowed to partially interview the two
oldest children in their bedroom. Both children also denied anyone else was in the house
or that Miguel lived there.
During the home inspection, the caseworker noticed someone in a bed in another
bedroom. She told the officer,2 who found Miguel attempting to hide in a closet. Miguel
had an active warrant for assaulting a pregnant woman—Michelle. Michelle knew about
the warrant.
2 The officer testified without objection that Michelle “had a history of harboring her boyfriend who
is . . . physically abusive towards her . . . .” 2 When the officer sought to place Miguel under arrest, he fought the officer, hitting
him in the ribs with his knee. Michelle jumped on top of the officer, trying to pull him away.
The altercation unfolded in front of all the children. The second-oldest child sobbed. The
two younger boys seemed unfazed. The oldest child, sobbing and dry heaving, tried to
help Michelle and worried aloud about who would pay the rent if Miguel was gone. With
the assistance of a backup officer, Miguel was eventually subdued and placed under
arrest.
Michelle also had claimed she possessed no contact information for David, the
father of her four oldest children. But after the altercation, David showed up when
Michelle called him for help. He could not take the children because of allegations against
him. Bella was placed with foster parents, the Intervenors in this case. The other four
children went to separate foster homes.
After a temporary removal hearing, Michelle received a Family Plan of Service.
The plan offered a path to reunification: complete the required services, and she would
have the opportunity to regain custody. While Michelle worked through her services, the
four oldest children were eventually placed together in one foster home. Bella stayed
with Intervenors. Michelle received supervised visits with Bella twice per week.
Problems surfaced about how Michelle fed Bella during visits. While Bella was still
on a formula-only diet, Michelle fed her daughter gel candy. Bella returned from visits
suffering from vomiting and diarrhea. Once Bella moved to finger foods, Michelle gave
the child soda, candy, Takis, and Cheetos.
3 Nearly two years after the children’s removal, the case went to trial. The
Department abandoned its termination request, but Intervenors sought to terminate
Michelle’s parental rights.3 At trial, Michelle admitted she allowed Miguel around the
children after his arrest. She admitted communicating with Miguel after he was jailed for
allegedly assaulting her. She admitted lying during her psychological evaluation and
therapy sessions. She admitted failing to acknowledge the abuse. She admitted being
denied continuation of required services. She admitted lying about completing her
services. Evidence also showed Michelle drove the children around town without a
driver’s license, without car seats for the young children, and without being a named
insured driver on the car.
The jury found Michelle endangered Bella but declined to terminate her rights.
Instead, the jury awarded managing conservatorship to Intervenors and possessory
conservatorship to Michelle. The trial court set possession and access as recommended
by Bella’s attorney ad litem. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
In her first issue, Michelle argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient
to support endangerment under sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) of the Family Code.
We hold that Michelle did not preserve this complaint for review.
Following a jury trial, a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence must be
preserved in one of five ways: (1) a motion for instructed verdict, (2) a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), (3) an objection to the submission of the question to
3 Father was unknown and his rights were terminated.
4 the jury, (4) a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact question, or (5) a motion
for new trial. In re J.W., No. 07-22-00360-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4221, at *1–2 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo June 15, 2023, no pet.); see TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Preservation of a
factual sufficiency challenge requires a motion for new trial. Id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2).
Michelle filed none of the required motions or objections. Nor does Michelle argue
that counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error. See In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 574
(Tex. 2005) (noting that “the court of appeals may review the factual sufficiency of the
evidence in a parental termination case—even if a party failed to preserve error in the trial
court—if the parent’s counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error,” but finding no error
because mother “never alleged in either the court of appeals or in this Court that her
counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error”); In re C.C.O., 714 S.W.3d 198, 208 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2024, no pet.) (same).
Because Michelle failed to preserve her complaints of legal and factual evidentiary
sufficiency as to the jury’s endangerment findings, we overrule her first issue.
Possession and Restricted Access to the Child
In her second issue, Michelle argues the trial court erred in awarding her restricted
possession and access to Bella. The best interest of the child shall always be the primary
consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of
and access to the child. TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.002(a).
Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s conservatorship order for a clear abuse of
discretion. In re E.K.D., No. 07-24-00342-CV, 2025 Tex.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of B.P.-R., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-bp-r-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp7-2026.