in the Interest of N.M., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of N.M., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 19, 2019·No. 02-19-00215-CV·Published

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00215-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 323-107692-18

Before Gabriel, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gabriel

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Guy Moore (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his son, Nathan Moore.1 In a sole point, he argues that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the termination of his parental rights was in Nathan’s best interest. Because the entire record allowed the trial court to have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination was in Nathan’s best interest, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2018, police officers conducted a traffic stop of a car driven by Father.

Nathan’s mother Annie Post (Mother), two-year-old Nathan, and Mother’s older daughter Cathy were also in the car. The officers arrested Mother after discovering she had a warrant regarding a fraud charge in Oklahoma and noted a strong marijuana smell emanating from Father’s car. Father said that both children were his, but the officers determined that Cathy was classified as a missing person based on a custodial- kidnapping alert created at the request of Cathy’s father who lived in New York. Cathy had been missing for over a year. The officers removed Cathy and Nathan, and Cathy was reunited with her father the next day. The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) took custody of Nathan after obtaining an emergency custody order and filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, seeking to reunite

We use aliases to refer to the minor child and his family members. See Tex.

1

Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b).

Father and Mother with Nathan or to terminate their parental rights if reunification could not be achieved.

When Nathan was placed in a foster home, he had speech and developmental delays, which Father and Mother had not noticed. Nathan also had “difficulties” and “behaviors” when he was initially placed in DFPS’s custody:

[Nathan was] very possessive over objects and things, more so than your typical two year old. He actually claimed a couch in the [foster] home and wouldn’t let anybody touch it, stand near it, sit on it. He didn’t want to eat with the family. There was his palate with his food was not very broad. [Nathan] didn’t like really vegetables, he didn’t really like fruits.

His palate wasn’t very healthy.

Joel Juarez, a DFPS investigator, talked to Father soon after Nathan was placed in DFPS’s custody. Father admitted that he abused marijuana and opiates and that he cared for the children while using marijuana. Indeed, Nathan tested positive for marijuana exposure shortly after he was placed in DFPS’s custody.

Father was confirmed to be Nathan’s father, and he and Mother were placed under a service plan. The plan required Father and Mother to find safe and stable housing, maintain financial stability, undergo drug testing, participate in therapy, and complete alcohol- and drug-abuse treatment. Father was told that his compliance with the safety plan would be a factor in deciding whether he could be reunited with Nathan.

The only employment Father reported to DFPS was his self-employment as a car detailer and doing “odd jobs”; however, he could not provide proof of the

“decent amount of money” he reportedly made. Mother was unemployed. Mother and Father were uncooperative with DFPS’s attempts to arrange a home visit of her and Father’s living conditions, and Mother admitted where she and Father lived was not a stable environment. In fact, they were living in weekly hotels after being evicted from other living arrangements.

Father and Mother provided no proof that they were attending alcohol- and drug-abuse meetings. Neither successfully completed any form of drug treatment. While the service plan was in place, Mother abused and tested positive for opiates and admitted she used marijuana. Father tested positive many times for marijuana, continued to abuse opiates, and admitted that he had repeatedly exposed Nathan to second-hand marijuana smoke. Both Mother and Father missed or were late for the majority of their scheduled visits with Nathan. Mother and Father remained a couple throughout DFPS’s conservatorship.

In November 2018, Father approached a man at a gas station to ask him if he needed his car detailed. Mother then allegedly took $60 dollars from the man without his consent. While they were driving away, Father allegedly hit the man with his car.2 A grand jury indicted Mother with theft. In early 2019, Mother and Father convinced three elderly people to give them approximately $25,000 by lying that they had sick

2 Father alternately denied or pleaded the Fifth Amendment to this offense;

however, his invocation of the Fifth Amendment allowed the trial court to draw adverse inferences regarding the incident. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); In re C.J.F., 134 S.W.3d 343, 352 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).

triplets who required food and medicine that Mother and Father could not afford. Both were indicted with three counts of exploitation of the elderly.

DFPS investigated the possibility of placing Nathan with Father’s mother, Sandra Moore. During its investigation of Sandra as a possible placement for Nathan, Sandra admitted that she used marijuana every evening to relax and stated that marijuana was “one of [her] only friends.” Sandra lived with her daughter and her daughter’s three children in a two-bedroom apartment. The two school-aged children did not attend school, and Sandra was unemployed. Sandra did not comply with any of DFPS’s requests in order to show that she was an appropriate placement for Nathan.

Although DFPS’s initial, primary goal was reuniting Nathan with Mother and Father, by the time of trial, DFPS sought the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and an unrelated adoption for Nathan. At trial, Father testified that he was not ready to have Nathan even though he had had eleven months to prepare. Father was arrested during a break in the trial for violating his bond conditions after a urinalysis showed he had been using marijuana. Mother testified that she knew Father had driven Nathan while under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that he would smoke marijuana in the car while she and Nathan were present. She also admitted that she had not provided Nathan with a safe and stable environment.

Cortney Tiffany, the DFPS conservatorship worker assigned to Nathan’s case, testified to Mother’s and Father’s failures to comply with the service plan and their

drug abuse. She pointed out that their drug use continued throughout the case, rendering them unable to provide Nathan with a safe and stable environment. Tiffany testified that Nathan was doing well in his foster home and that his foster parents were motivated to adopt him if Mother’s and Father’s parental rights were terminated. Although Nathan’s visits with Mother and Father went well and he was bonded to his parents, Tiffany believed termination was in Nathan’s best interest because it would afford him permanency. Since his removal, Nathan had “done quite well” and had “hit” all of his developmental milestones. Nathan’s attorney ad litem agreed that termination was in Nathan’s best interest.

The trial court determined by clear and convincing evidence that Father had engaged in conduct justifying the termination of his parental rights3 and that termination was in Nathan’s best interest:

In considering conservatorship, [the] Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent managing conservatorship to [DFPS].

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