In the Interest of Z.G., a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of Z.G., a Child v. the State of Texas

DecidedMay 18, 2023

Docket02-23-00038-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of Z.G., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of Z.G., a Child v. the State of Texas) 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 the Interest of Z.G., a Child v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00038-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.G., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-706172-21

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

In this appeal, Appellant F.S.M. (Father) and Appellant C.G. (Mother) appeal

the trial court’s order terminating their respective parental rights to their child Z.G.

(Zoey).1 The trial court found that the Department of Family and Protective Services

(the Department) had proved three conduct-based grounds for termination against

Father and four conduct-based grounds against Mother and that termination of their

respective parental rights was in Zoey’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (R), (2). In his sole issue on appeal, Father contends that

the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest

finding. Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that he did

not find any legally nonfrivolous grounds constituting error. Because legally and

factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s best-interest finding with respect

to the termination of Father’s parental rights and because Mother’s appeal is frivolous,

we will affirm the trial court’s termination order.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Zoey’s Birth and Removal

Zoey was born in September 2021. Mother tested positive for

methamphetamines throughout her pregnancy, and Mother also tested positive for

To protect her identity, we use aliases to refer to the child and her brother. See 1

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2 methamphetamines when she delivered Zoey at the hospital. Zoey’s meconium tested

positive for methamphetamines and marijuana.

Nidra Jones, an investigator for the Department, received a referral from the

hospital regarding Zoey on the date of Zoey’s birth. Mother admitted to Jones that

she had used methamphetamines during her pregnancy, although Mother denied

methamphetamine use during the last five months of the pregnancy. Father told

Jones that he did not know what methamphetamines were, although he acknowledged

that Mother used methamphetamines. Father admitted that he had previously tested

positive for methamphetamines, stating that those test results had been positive due

to his being around Mother. Jones also learned that Zoey had a brother, R.S.G.

(Reid), who had tested positive for methamphetamines following his July 2020 birth.2

Three days after Zoey’s birth, she was removed from Father’s and Mother’s care and

placed into a foster home where Reid was staying.

B. The Events Following Zoey’s Removal

1. Father’s Service Plan and Positive Drug Tests

Reba Shaffer, a permanency specialist employed by Our Community Our Kids

(OCOK),3 testified that, following removal, the Department put a service plan in

Father’s and Mother’s respective parental rights to Reid were terminated in 2

August 2021. 3 “OCOK is a private provider of community-based care that contracts with the Department to provide foster care case management, kinship, and family reunification services in parts of the state, including Tarrant County.” In re T.D., No. 02-22-00215-

3 place for Father. Father was asked to complete parenting classes, to participate in

individual counseling, and to submit to random drug testing. Shaffer testified that

Father completed the parenting classes and the individual counseling. As to the

random drug testing, Father’s hair tested positive for methamphetamines in April,

May, June, September, October, and November 2022. Shaffer requested that Father

submit to drug testing in December 2022, but Father did not submit to the test.

At trial, Father denied ever having used methamphetamines, but he had no

explanation for his positive test results. In the past, Father had told the Department

that his positive results were due to being around Mother. Mother testified, however,

that Father was never present when she used methamphetamines, and Father testified

that he had never seen Mother use drugs. Moreover, Mother stated that she did not

use drugs in the family’s home, explaining that she went outside to use drugs.

As to Father’s drug use, Mother told Shaffer that she was concerned that

Father was using methamphetamines, although Mother indicated that Father was not

using methamphetamines in her presence. At trial, Mother stated that she had never

seen Father use drugs, although she also said that Father occasionally behaved in the

manner of someone who was using drugs.

CV, 2022 WL 11483054, at *3 n.9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 20, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

4 2. Mother’s Service Plan and Positive Drug Tests

Shaffer testified that, following removal, the Department put a service plan in

place for Mother. Mother was asked to complete a drug assessment, parenting

classes, Narcotics Anonymous classes, and individual counseling. She was also asked

to participate in random drug testing and to engage in inpatient drug treatment.

Shaffer testified that Mother did not complete any of her services. Mother also tested

positive for methamphetamines in October and November 2021, as well as January,

February, March, April, July, and September 2022. Mother tested positive for

marijuana in February, March, April, July, and September 2022.4

At trial, Mother admitted to having drug problems and stated that she had last

used methamphetamine “a week or two” before trial. Father testified that he had

never discussed Mother’s methamphetamine addiction with her, noting, “[I]t’s hard to

understand because she’s an addict and I am not, so I just don’t understand it.”

3. Zoey’s Placement with the Foster Family

Following removal, Zoey was initially placed in a foster home with Reid.

Thereafter, Zoey and Reid were sent together to a different foster family that adopted

Reid. Apart from Zoey and Reid, that foster family consists of a foster father, a foster

mother, and two foster siblings (the Foster Family). Shaffer testified that Zoey and

Reid were “extremely bonded,” noting that the two were “very friendly with one

Shaffer requested that Mother submit to drug testing in November and 4

December 2022, but Mother did not submit to those tests.

5 another” and that Reid shared well with Zoey and showed concern for her. Shaffer

also testified that the Foster Family had been able to meet Zoey’s emotional, physical,

developmental, educational, and medical needs, and Shaffer anticipated that they

would continue to meet those needs in the future. The Department’s permanency

plan was for Zoey to remain with the Foster Family and to be ultimately adopted by

the Foster Family.

C. Procedural Background

In its petition, the Department sought termination of Father’s parental rights as

to Zoey based on, among other things, the predicate termination grounds set forth in

Subsections (D), (E), and (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code. See Tex.

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