in the Interest of D. L. D., Jr., L. L.S., J. J. S., H. N. S., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 19, 2015·No. 01-15-00160-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

01-15-00160-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/19/2015 4:04:20 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

No. 01-15-00160-CV

______________________________________ FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 6/19/2015 4:04:20 PM FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTONCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE __________________________________ Clerk

In the Interest of D.L.D., L.L.S., J.J.S., H.N.S., Children

J.T.D. [mother], Appellants v.

Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee

On appeal from the 313th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas; No. 2013-05778J

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

VINCE RYAN COUNTY ATTORNEY State Bar #99999939 Sandra D. Hachem (SBN 08667060) Sr. Assistant County Attorney 1019 Congress, 175h Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 274-5293 Facsimile: (713) 437-4700 Email: sandra.hachem@cao.hctx.net ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED [If deemed necessary]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................iv

REPLY POINT .......................................................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 14

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 17

REPLY POINT ONE: Nothing in the court’s conduct during trial reflects error and does not provide a basis for reversal. ............................. 17

REPLY POINT TWO: The evidence sufficiently supported the court’s finding that parental termination was in the children’s best interest ........ 20

1. Appellant’s Claim, the Law and Standard of Review .................... 20

2. There was sufficient proof for the trier of fact’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest considering the evidence in support of Subsections D, E and O, and particularly, the proof that the mother had a pattern of neglect, and engaged in illegal drug and prostitution activities after the children came into care demonstrating her lack of commitment to the parent-child relationship. ............................................................. 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................... 30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 31

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE ........................................... 31

Appendix ......................................................................................................(attached)

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26 (Tex. 2002).. .................................................21, 22, 27

Earvin v. Dept. of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 229 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). .................................................. 29

In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). ........................................... 21

In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) .............................................................. 27

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. 1985) ........................................................... 21

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) ....................................................... 24

I.K.B. Ind. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) ............ 25

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) ................................................................. 22

In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex.2009) ............................................................... 20

M.M.V. v. Tex. Dept of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 455 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2014. no pet.) ...................................................17

P.W. v. Dept. of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 403 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). .................................. 20

In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.)....................... 29

In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)................................................................. 23

STATUTES

Tex. Fam. Code An. §101.007 (West 2014) ............................................................ 22

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §161.001 (West 2008) ........................................ iv, 20, 21, 25

iii

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §263.307 (West 2014) ....................................................24, 26

RULES

Tex. R. App. P. 33.1................................................................................................. 17

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 18, 2013, the Department filed a suit for protection of four children

all under the age of 6. CR1 4. A second amended petition was filed on August 21,

2014. CR 55. A bench trial was held January 20, 2015. CR 85. A judgment was

thereafter signed on February 3, 2015 that terminated the parent-child relationships

of the mother (JTD) and the unknown and alleged fathers Charles, Rodney, and

Troy. Id. JTD’s parental rights were terminated based on findings that it was in the

children’s best interest and that she committed the predicate acts of Subsection D,

E, and O of Section 161.001(1) of the Family Code. CR 87-88. The Department

was named the sole managing conservator of the three youngest children and

Darrell, the biological father of DLD, was named the sole managing conservator of

DLD. CR 90. JTD did not file a motion for new trial.

1 In this brief “CR” refers to the Clerk’s record filed in this appeal.

iv

REPLY POINTS

REPLY POINT ONE: Nothing in the court’s conduct during trial reflects error and does not provide a basis for reversal.

REPLY POINT TWO: The evidence sufficiently supported the court’s finding that parental termination was in the children’s best interest

v

No. 01-15-00160-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

In the Interest of D.L.D., L.L.S., J.J.S., H.N.S., Children

J.T.D. [mother], Appellants v.

Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee

On appeal from the 313th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas; No. 2013-05778J

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee, [hereinafter

“Department”] submits this brief in response to the brief of ALT.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

JTD (appellant) was born in 1986. RR-5 p. 78. When she was 21 years of

age, she gave birth to her oldest child, a son (DLD), in the early summer of 2007 in

Louisiana. RR-5 p. 14. Her next child, another son (LLS) was born in the early

spring of 2010 in Louisiana. RR-5 16. Her third child (JJS), another little boy, was

born in the early spring of 2011 in Louisiana. RR-5 p. 18. Her fourth child (HNS),

a little girl, was born in the spring of 2012 in Louisiana. RR-5 p. 20.

On July 4, 2013, the Department received a report of neglectful supervision

concerning the oldest child. RR-5 p. 36. It was reported that he was touched

inappropriately by a younger cousin and the mother failed to take steps to make her

child safe. RR-5 p. 36. A few days later, the Department received another report.

RR-5 p. 36. This time it was reported that all of the children were placed in a

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

in the Interest of D. L. D., Jr., L. L.S., J. J. S., H. N. S., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in the Interest of D. L. D., Jr., L. L.S., J. J. S., H. N. S., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services (in the Interest of D. L. D., Jr., L. L.S., J. J. S., H. N. S., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re J.O.A.
283 S.W.3d 336 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Holley v. Adams
544 S.W.2d 367 (Texas Supreme Court, 1976)
Earvin v. Department of Family & Protective Services
229 S.W.3d 345 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
IKB Industries (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp.
938 S.W.2d 440 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
M.M v. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
455 S.W.3d 186 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
In the Interest of E.C.R., Child
402 S.W.3d 239 (Texas Supreme Court, 2013)
in the Interest of S.B. and Y.B., Minor Children
207 S.W.3d 877 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
In the Interest of U.P., a Child
105 S.W.3d 222 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
in the Interest of E.A.F., Child
424 S.W.3d 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
P.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services
403 S.W.3d 471 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Freeman, Receiver v. Ortiz
153 S.W. 304 (Texas Supreme Court, 1913)
In the interest of C.H.
89 S.W.3d 17 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
In the Interest of J.F.C.
96 S.W.3d 256 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)