in the Interest of I. M. v. a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 19, 2020·No. 13-19-00591-CV·Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-19-00591-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF I. M. V., A CHILD

On appeal from the 267th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant M.M.C. (Mother) challenges the termination of her parental rights to her

child I.M.V. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). The trial court found

that the termination of Mother’s rights was in I.M.V.’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(2). In her sole issue, Mother argues that the trial court had insufficient

medical evidence to support the termination. We affirm.

1 To protect the identity of minor child, we utilize aliases for the child and related parties. See TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). I. BACKGROUND

I.M.V. was born with her meconium testing positive for marijuana and

methamphetamine and appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the

Department), immediately became involved. Approximately eleven months later, on

October 15, 2019, the trial court presided over the termination hearing at which the

Department sought to have Mother’s rights to I.M.V. terminated.

I.V. (Father) 2 testified at the hearing that he witnessed Mother doing drugs,

specifically methamphetamine, during the course of her pregnancy with I.M.V. At the time

of the termination hearing, Father was incarcerated for assault family violence, for an

altercation with Mother. Father further testified that he provided the Department with

family options for I.M.V., including Father’s grandmother, whom he believed would be the

best person to raise I.M.V. He believed that Mother could be fit to raise I.M.V. if she were

to move out of her mother’s house and stop using drugs, but he testified that “[Mother

has] had 11 months to get it together” and he believes that termination would be

appropriate.

Nikki Carver, a caseworker for the Department assigned to I.M.V.’s case, testified

that she assisted the original caseworker, Katy Sanders, who is no longer employed with

the Department, in creating a service plan for Mother due to I.M.V.’s meconium testing

positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at birth, though her urine analysis tested

clean. The Department attempted to initiate a safety plan which would provide for twenty-

four-hour supervision for Mother and I.M.V. The Department looked at “10 to 15” options

for the safety plan, but only one caregiver was viable. After only one weekend where

2 I.V. voluntarily relinquished his rights to the child and is not a party to this appeal. 2 Mother and I.M.V. stayed at the caregiver’s home, the caregiver was unable to continue

to provide care. According to Carver, the Department was unable to create a new safety

plan which would have involved the child’s paternal great-grandmother caring for I.M.V.,

because the paternal great-grandmother was unsure that Father was actually I.M.V.’s

father and wanted testing to be done before she would be considered a caregiver. As

such, the Department sought removal of I.M.V. from Mother due to Mother’s “extensive

drug use” and refusal to attend inpatient counseling.

Carver described her brief interactions with Mother as “like a roller coaster,” stating

that “[Mother] was all over the place” and Mother’s emotions changed very quickly, which

was concerning to Carver. Carver testified that Mother did not possess the parenting skills

necessary to care for I.M.V. Carver also believed that I.M.V. was in immediate danger

due to the instability of the home and the rampant drug use in the home. The Department,

in doing its check into the home, discovered that there was also a drive-by shooting

outside of the home involving Father. The Department removed I.M.V. and she was then

placed in foster care.

Dr. Russell Thompson, a licensed psychologist contracted by the Department,

testified that he was asked to perform a psychological evaluation of Mother. After months

of scheduling and rescheduling appointments, he was able to briefly meet with Mother.

He had reviewed the records in the case prior to their meeting. At first, Mother refused to

sign the consent form for his evaluation, and subsequently, after she signed and he began

the evaluation, she attempted to retrieve the signed form from his briefcase. Thompson

testified that Mother was contentious and upset, and because of her behavior and

demeanor, he felt that he could not proceed with the evaluation. He found that Mother

3 was not cooperative and would not benefit from therapy because in his limited time with

her, Mother did not give him the impression that “she would be willing to be reflective or

introspective to consider ways that she might change or work on things to help solve” her

problems.

Diana Stafford, a teacher of parenting skills for the Reclamation Center, testified

that Mother was signed up for the ten-week parenting course. Initially, Mother signed up

for the course on December 18, 2018, and she participated in nine of the ten weeks. In

order to complete the course, Mother needed to attend all ten weeks. Mother did not

complete the make-up class offered for week ten. Later, Mother returned to re-do the

course, but only completed weeks five and six. Mother never completed the full ten-week

course.

Jill O’Neill, a counselor, was referred to Mother’s case by the Department. She

testified that she did not have a consistent individual counseling relationship with Mother,

but that she offered her support services to Mother and would attend the visits between

Mother and I.M.V. She testified that Mother was at times argumentative, oppositional, and

not committed to counseling. O’Neill testified that she observed that Mother was not

engaged “in the overall development—medically, emotionally—of the needs of the child.”

O’Neill testified that Mother did appear to become more engaged and developed more of

a rapport with I.M.V. in the months before the termination hearing.

Rosie Valderrama, the Department caseworker assigned to monitor the visits

between Mother and I.M.V., also testified. She explained that there were thirty-seven

scheduled visits, but Mother canceled or missed thirteen of those. Valderrama explained

that there were several instances, seven recorded, where Mother refused to return I.M.V.

4 to Valderrama’s care without Valderrama receiving assistance from other caseworkers

after the visit. Like O’Neill, Valderrama expressed that mother was resistant to any

parenting suggestions and advice during her visits. She noted that Mother had shown

signs of improvement with I.M.V., but that in a recent visit in July of 2019, Mother showed

signs of anger and aggression toward I.M.V. for not drinking her bottle fast enough and

Valderrama stated that Mother told the child “she wasn’t going to be spoiled at home.”

Valderrama stated that Mother’s discipline of I.M.V. was not age appropriate.

I.M.V.’s occupational therapist, Beverly Seals, testified that she has been working

with I.M.V. since December 26, 2018. Seals noted that I.M.V. has many special needs,

especially with feeding due to her cleft palate. Seals had one visit with Mother and I.M.V.

in which Seals attempted to show Mother calming techniques for I.M.V.; Mother was

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