Dominguez, Daniel Vasquez ( 2015 )

r^-frvw-y? 314-IS
T*\ \\\-^
-^EGfcriffcfi
< COU«T (FORMAL APPEALS
\ ^ JUN 04 2015
\1.
AW SV^ ^V\ vx vs AM to^ 5?k
__
^W\^«\^.\\VA>\^ p||rniM
rlLED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ts^\^ • r \v* \« "\> * Abel Acosta, Cierk
>UNK.'*- v, \)o \N\\ xf\v>A>
Ki * _
~]W\W^ ^VaV. CjioA o\k^As
A>us\\vNjL
3vxs\\xju
V. ^)
"AcaNoW ^>X Cj^>fvV^\rs.\S "_
\>1
• *
\ i
^
^\\jX^v«v\sj\^ ^V"3\iAsb^*-^v^ ♦ u
SV"^Jv^Sun^ \}V :*Xv^ vlsySS^ « \
*A\a
u\\
XrvXx* oV K\k>N"AV\(L^
Sfc!^
Av»iCkk ^vxA-A ^\v^\*\c\ KtfJi\ *•
XX"^vi^X"^sMrs^s"A^t.W^.K^.amy • - DA
vH. )
^u^*
\%\\V\Vi
X* \-. ^.\\S5\-b YWwV*
"V^V* m,V\".W^. 3VYS v\.S.1"S VX-*l ^SS5L\. XX^V • - •. V\XR"V
\^\-.^/^\Sv\Kv^ ......
^uUAU^W ......
xxAXe\ "s^K^.^vxs^jX^s^vavx^ - -• - • - x^y\
bAJV^VA
A**3\vA-
\f\ :xV-"A*.*ws ^ vvs\\V\\ w\ 3RA, xl. sxx ,\.
V M
^LO^X^SV \y>c xA^oA WlvVKNvx^NTsX;
VA-
xA^ ^v>cA ^A K"mAs xAAvkW,\Ana "oV\\X AvxAv\,oA-
SvAV\O"S_,va XuAW> s\c}uv\VwA OXXV VU. \V\_S^Mv^\ fcv\
X\>^\ \rV^_ 'Oo^WtnUl. ^ei>Ai»A \q>a x\x_ SA^k^. VSUv^sj^
\^r XA^ \Vkc\^S^S ^\ XA^. X^v^V V^jOvwrVs \sj£\SX\W^ /\ A^K \v-A\rsvK . ~AA>»1 j ^AqK^. XC^va^q^ KwtN
vxA.S ioH^\ XWnk UA.vX.^ v\hifNSw\ S"A^AYA^
\>W vJx^nTn^V^X Vo3^\^VA o\ \A^ VxSxK^v^X- ^S \^> A^ MV\Ck-
.xNAis"xXNrCxvK^ 3xV 'A^&m xA^ vt^s^q"vx"cxjvOk ^xWw
OSLsfW"v"^ VvWS Xc^vw AW SVvAl vjsj^xvA SXv^- U&v\Vs,
VSLtLVxAJVXJL AViC X^fcvKcV ^X V\X^vAs \S MX^X A)0\KV\vA\si X>XW>
^X\x_ ^i^vo^woj^ \^ A\«ArA x\sqA)A^Ag ^Kx_ xm;o-
Xj^Ac^*-^ VXJV\1\>A^ ^'XcKvvsvU. ^ v"S">l^\>^\\""9Ab.
"AxAt, x^xkvA, cAtv^mAV sA vVsx^kx Ax*- ^qxkc\ WA W&uXs
0v\X\\SO^X ^r ^r'Ou.x VLO\w} X>f\ ^xAx. ^oIxUnvU^.
^V)
S\oAt-'MVN" tA XVoc"SA.
WXs OkSxX. Xsrsvi-iAv^S ^xn \Xx\^kvc QxSxA. \At^XCxkj^ \iO\Av.
Q^MvV AviO^ V^X^< OvikKKVjAA^S \)Ax^ \)0j^fV cA^ \XN\W" V\WV jA\^Nf\\\^s 4^\\ K\^SuAs b^
/\m~ xows mvo\ v^uA^A^A\^f
\VjLS5i_ ^S"wSSLS \Xv>XA\ "^OofvJ^ XS ^O^X} vx^«AA\ \j^0\AAAl3L
^x NA ^>M\^^Av^r^SL"Ai xows xSSvxsA,
V^ X^Vv^v x^)^vjAA XXo^. SA^Aa. xiOcAA So Aov^v Ao XtvVx^A X^v W
~W \r^_ ^JS^mA ^>V ^Lc vc \o "A~x_ oAxsto^A ^Xixwo^s ^sA\V\"^r W^Wa CmtcfaMfo> Lf V^coW^v fc\ vkVkkAAv^vvx ^vnj^v ^OOk^X-
\'\-
Av"^feAAOA^A"^S. \V- XjOUS S&^A^vnOjA \v\VWx^\Xi^VvjOvkS
"OXSlWSSuA \cS)st>tn \j\^VKCO^ruA\Gv\ \f\ x^OX^LXX^jn \>sAA\\^C\^S
X"^sjcn^jo, vjOXXX^ Ov *j- XaAA\x.\/\ ^A"'nAA^.
~AW ^*oAk \s AVwX Aw T\VxAr A^xK^ v^Xr^o^S V^WH^ ^W\ Qa^U^vV
^oAslm^NV^KS vkS "xAo^ SAvA;^ \c&^SlvA>A^v\ vAvaA (\f\sA^A^
X3vAX\rM\ xjAcv^vn^ X^A\W^vN\r V\w\K \>Ax"KVa 'Sl^vK'AA^k vxSS-
v^nj^A" A"eoAx^x A\xt>(xS ^XkK Ao A^X, X\r<\\"^VjA^\^Xiv^X
vO^kS lAx^X, X*> xj\\>A_\Ar\X\ \o \ XAj^ A\csV ^A JsXjf"
CkS xX-s^ Tt^orA 4At^ X\rs :xAx V^vks \k\\wAr*\A/^X uX Xc^Xr
Wo-*- ^vv^\^4XVKX^Wva SuolO^> ^A^\X.\Nr\\A^ASov x^S\Xovv^A^A\V^Axj c
_ .. _ ,, ^ A V^Oow ^ ~XwU*S 'SXvA*- ^vktA V^v\ 0\
Ax^L. \AA\^vA SVv>A\S ^v\ NT^s3ur^ A^vvno^s" \xV >r\^A
"vOv\\ \X \^A<^ X^NXW"vxXXS vxr^XXWsK "W-
\)XAAtNrv.i \jsVoi As ^A-x, Svxjnno^ \>\^Xrv\ AVo^Xr y$AAX ^>r^r \s
~AAx_ vAAn^WXx, O^lsXa^-^ V>r X)vX\s xj&vsfA Ao fVxAw)
x to
l"o^rWx
Opinion filed February 27, 2015
***% p#v
:ji I •
In The
Cletjentf) Court of ®pptal&
No. 11-12-00349-CR
DANIEL VASQUEZ DOMINGUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 104th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 13674-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Daniel Vasquez Dominguez appeals the trial court's order denying his
motion for DNA testing of evidence related to his conviction for aggravated sexual
assault of a child. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying
the motion, we affirm.
Background Facts
"'• Appellant was indicted in 2000 for the offenses of aggravated sexual assault
of a child and indecency with a child. On January 8, 2001, he'entered a plea-of no
contest to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of-a child. Pursuant to a plea
bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed
Appellant on community supervision for eight years. The State subsequently filed
a motion to adjudicate. The trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision,
adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to confinement for thirty years. The
sentence was imposed in open court on February 10, 2006. Appellant attempted to
file a direct appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt, but we dismissed the
appeal for want-of-j-ur-isdiot-ion- beeause-the appeal- was-not- timely filed.
On May 15, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se motion in the trial court for
postconviction forensic testing. The trial court appointed counsel for Appellant in
connection with the motion for postconviction forensic testing. Appointed counsel
subsequently filed a motion to withdraw that the trial court granted. Appellant
then filed this appeal. Upon our receipt of Appellant's pro se notice of appeal, we
entered an order abating the appeal that required the trial court to make various
findings. Pursuant to our abatement order, the trial court made the following
findings:
1. On July 28, 2000, the trial court determined, that the
Appellant was indigent.
2. On February 10, 2006, the trial court revoked Appellant's
community supervision, convicted him, and sentenced him to 30 years
in prison. The Appellant has remained incarcerated since that time.
3. The trial court has received no information indicating any
change in Appellant's financial circumstances.
4. Therefore, the trial court determines that Appellant is still
indigent.
5. On May 30, 2012, the trial court appointed Mr. Alex Eyssen
to represent Appellant in obtaining DNA testing pursuant to Article
64.01(c), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. On December 19, 2012, the trial court[] allowed Mr. Eyssen
to withdraw because he was closing his law practice and leaving the
[Sjtate of Texas. !J":"<.
7. Appellant is not currently represented by counsel.
8. Appellant's attorney did not abandon the appeal; he was
allowed to withdraw by the trial court.
9. On October 31, 2012, the trial court issued an order finding
that:
—The State's (criminal) case was based entirely
on witness statements, and
—No physical evidence was seized by law
enforcement, and
—No physical evidence was in possession of the
State during the trial of the offense.
10. In the October 31, 2012[] order, the trial court also found
that the Appellant was not entitled to DNA testing; and, the trial court
declined to order any DNA testing.
11. There are no reasonable grounds for the Appellant to file a
motion for forensic DNA testing.
12. New counsel should not be appointed to represent the
Appellant on appeal.
Upon receipt of the trial court's findings, we reinstated this appeal.
Analysis
Appellant presents three issues on appeal. In his first issue, Appellant
complains of the "denial of assistance of counsel." In support of this issue, he
alleges that his appointed counsel was ineffective "assisting in the investigation of
evidence filed in another court." Specifically, he contends that counsel did not
thoroughly investigate the evidence regarding his victim's "pregnancy" case filed
in the 326th District Court of Taylor County.1 In his second issue, he complains of
"violations of due process," "ineffective assistance of counsel," and "violation of
equal protection of the law." In support of his second issue, he 'Cbritends that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence from the 326th District
Court. In his third issue, Appellant complains of the "denial of forensic, DNA
testing hearing by Brady violations of exculpatory evidence related and filed in the
326th District Court."
This appeal was brought under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This chapter authorizes DNA testing in cases where the applicant
meets the relevant requirements. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03 (West
Supp. 2014). Chapter 64 also gives appellate courts jurisdiction to review an order
by a trial court denying a request for postconviction DNA testing for cases in
which the defendant was not given the death penalty. Id. art. 64.05 (West 2006).
However, in an appeal from the denial of a request for DNA testing, we may not
consider any claims that fall outside the scope of Chapter 64. In re Garcia, 363
S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.). "Chapter 64 is not an
invitation to review every potential error in the underlying trial proceedings;
instead, it is simply a procedural vehicle for obtaining evidence 'which might then
be used in a state or federal habeas proceeding.'" Id. (quoting Thacker v. State,
111 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)).
A trial court is only required to order DNA testing under Chapter 64 if the
relevant statutory requirements are met. Crim. PROC. art. 64.03(a). As noted
above, the trial court based its order denying Appellant's request for DNA testing
'The 326th District Court is a "family district court" that by statute "has primary responsibility
for cases involving family law matters." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 24.601,24. 634 (West 2004).
on the fact that the State's criminal case against Appellant was based entirely on
witness statements, that no physical evidence was seized by law enforcement, and
that no physical evidence was in possession of the State during the trial of the
offense.
A convicting court may base its decision regarding a Chapter 64 claim on
the sufficiency of the State's written explanation. Caddie v. State, 176 S.W.3d
286, 289 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref d). In an appeal ofa trial
court's decision regarding a Chapter 64 claim, reviewing courts "defer to the trial
court's determination of historical facts, and its application of law to the facts if it
turns on credibility and demeanor, and review de novo applications of law to the
undisputed facts." Id. Under this standard, reviewing courts "defer to a trial
court's finding as to whether the claimed DNA evidence exists and is in a
condition to be tested." Id. The clerk's record contains a letter from an assistant
district attorney to Appellant's counsel advising him that Appellant's criminal case
"was based entirely on witness statements. There was no physical evidence of any
kind taken by the police."2 There is also a letter in the clerk's record from
Lieutenant David Atkins of the Taylor County Sheriffs Office addressed to the
trial court that confirms this same information. In light of the standard of review
governing this case and based on the record, we conclude that the evidence is
sufficient to support the trial court's determination that no DNA evidence exists.
The bulk of Appellant's claims on appeal focus on his efforts to obtain
evidence from another proceeding. By its express terms, Chapter 64 only applies
to the testing of evidence "that was secured in relation to the offense that is the
basis of the challenged conviction." Crim. Proc. art. 64.01(b). Accordingly,
Appellant's claims seeking to obtain evidence from another proceeding are beyond
"This letter also informs Appellant's counsel that the file in the 326th District Court from which
Appellant sought evidence is a "closed and sealed file."
the scope of Chapter 64, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's
request to test the evidence from the family court proceeding. Furthermore,
Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to obtaining
evidence from the proceeding must also fail because the requested evidence was
beyond the scope of Chapter 64. '•"•'. ";
Regarding Appellant's request for the appointment of new counsel,
Chapter 64 specifies that "[fjhe convicting court shall appoint counsel for the
convicted person if the person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a
motion under this chapter, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be
filed, and the court determines that the person is indigent." Crim. Proc.
art. 64.01(c). The trial court initially appointed counsel for Appellant, but subse
quently determined that "[tjhere are no reasonable grounds for the Appellant to file
a motion for forensic DNA testing." Based upon this determination, the trial court
concluded that it was not obligated to appoint new counsel on appeal. In this case,
the trial court had evidence that no biological evidence existed that could be tested.
That evidence provided sufficient justification for the trial court to determine that
there were no reasonable grounds for the Chapter 64 motion to be filed. See
Blake v. State, 208 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex. Appr—Texarkana 2006, no pet.).
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by failing to grant
Appellant's request for the appointment of new counsel. See Ex parte Gutierrez,
337 S.W.3d 883, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (stating that courts have found that
reasonable grounds are not present if no evidence exists or if it has been
destroyed).
In his brief, Appellant additionally challenges his original conviction.
Chapter 64 does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to entertain collateral
attacks on the trial court's judgment of conviction or to review, under the guise of
a DNA testing appeal, anything beyond the scope of the request to conduct DNA
testing. See Reger v. State, 111 S.W.3d 510, 512-13 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2007, pet. refd); Hooks v. State, 203 S.W.3d 861, 866 (Tex: App.—Texarkana
2006, pet. refd). Accordingly, we do not entertain Appellant's challenges to his
original conviction.
For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Appellant's three issues challenging
the district court's decision to deny his request for DNA testing and his request for
the appointment of new counsel.
This Court's Ruling
We affirm the order of the trial court.
JOHN M. BAILEY
JUSTICE
February 27, 2015
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
*•
^V\av- \
Law Offices of Alex B. Eyssen, pllc
Post Office Box 3321
Abilene, Texas 79604
www.eyssenlaw.com
Alex B. Eyssen Telephone: (325)267-6030
Alex@eyssenlaw.com Facsimile: (325) 267-6031
September 17, 2012
Honorable Lee Hamilton
Judge, 104th District Court
300 Oak Street
Abilene, Texas 7.9602
Re: Cause No.13674-B; State of Texas vs. Daniel Dominguez
Dear Judge Hamilton:
Please allow this letter to serve as a request for a hearing on Defendant's Motion for Forensic and DNA
testing filed pro se by my client Daniel Dominguez.
In addition, I would request a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of
Counsel that was previously filed by my office. Both matters could be set at the same time.
Lastly, please allow this letter to serve as a request for my client to be bench warranted from the
Nathaniel Neal Unit to Abilene so that he may attend these hearings in person.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Alex B. E^ssea
Abilene Office Anson Office
802 Mulberry 311N. Commercial
Abilene, Texas 79601 Anson, Texas 79501
t^VvV* \
CAUSE NO. 13674-B %J Lfl[ U "
STATE OFTEXAS § 104thDIST"G"F) ?^
DANIEL VASQUEZ DOMINGUEZ
§§ TAYLOR C'ViJiERK
TAYUJR_C^UNTY; tWxA5(4 s
MOTION TO WITHDRAW, REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND
NOTICE OF HEARING
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes Alex Eyssen, Movant, and brings this Motion to Withdraw, Request for
Appointment of Counsel, and Notice of Hearingand in support thereof shows:
1. Movant is the court-appointed attorney ofrecord for Daniel Vasquez Dominguez.
2. Good cause to withdraw exists as specified below:
a. The attorney of record, Alex Eyssen, is closing his law firm effective
October 1, 2012. It is neither expected nor anticipated that the above-referenced
case will be resolved by said date. Thus, the undersigned respectfully requests
that he be allowed to withdraw and that another attorney be appointed to handle
the above-referenced case.
3. The following settings exist in the above-reference case:
a. Hearing on the Motion to Withdraw: September^, 2012 at 4:00 p.m.
4. This request is not sought for delay^
NOTICE TO CLIENT
A copy of this motion has been delivered to Daniel Vasquez Dominguez. The last known
mailing address of Daniel Vasquez Dominguez is # 1355966 c/o Nathaniel Neal Unit, 9055 Spur
591, Amarillo, Texas 79107.
NOTICE OF HEARING
This Motion is set for hearing at 4:00 p.m. on September 21, 2012 in the 104th District
Court in and for Taylor County.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that the Court will grant his
motion to withdraw and appoint substituted counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF ALEX B. EYSSEN, PLLC
Post Office Box 3321
Abilene, Texas 79604
Tel: (325) 267-6030
Fax:(325)267-6031
By: A*^
Alex B. Eys0R
State Bar No. 24036542.
Attorney for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on 1y2.i& 2012, a true and correct copy ofthe above and
foregoing document was served on the Taylor County District Attorney's Office via hand
delivery.
JLz
Alex Eyssen/"^
eaAwa- -* S>
ay l
CW' CAUSE NO. 5034-CX % flfjft U
IN THE INTEREST OF § 7-. /te^jffiSjteB^CT COURT OF
X 6 -^ 0/? ^#***
DIANXfLORES, § "TAl^QRZJ(£^rrY,
TAl^QR5(^JpNTY, TEXAS
§
§ 326TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PERMANENCY PLAN AND
PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services presents this report to the
Court to enable the court to review both the permanency plan for the children the subject
of this suit and the progress that has been made toward ensuring that a final order
consistent with this plan is renderedbeforethe date for dismissal of the suit.
The Department was appointed Temporary Sole Managing Conservator of the children on
-> May22,2000. The children came into conservatorship for the following reasons:
Diana Fiores made an outcry that her stepfather, Daniel Dominguez raped her four
times. Initially the investigator asked the mother to allow Diana to live with her
grandmother until the investigation was completed. Mother and stepfather did not
want her to be away from home so the child was removed from the home. Daniel
Dominguez was arrested aiid Diana was allowed to go back to the home to complete
summer school. Diana was to have no contact at all with Mr. Dominguez and she
would be removed if he got out of jail and moved back home.
1. SUBJECT CHILDREN
NAME OF CHILD DATE OF BIRTH TYPE OF CURRENT PLACEMENT
DIANA FLORES 11/09/85 OWN HOME
PERSONS RECEIVING THIS REPORT
FATHER: Deceased
MOTHER:
Maria Fiores
873 Sycamore St.
Abilene, TX 79602
PERMANENCY PLAN/PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
NAME:
PAGE 2
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:
Assistant District Attorney
Glenna Cordray
300 Oak St.
Abilene, Texas 79602
ATTORNEYAD LITEM FOR THE CHILD.
Stanley Smith
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3579
Abilene, Texas 79604
ATTORNEY GARDIAN AD LITEMFOR CHILD
Shane Deel
Attorney at Law
1057 S. 3rd
Abilene, Texas 79602
A COPY HAS 4LSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOSTER PARENT OR
DIRECTOR OF GROUP HOME OR INSTITUTION WHERE EACH CHILD IS
RESIDING
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OR CONTINUATION OF SUIT
The Department recommends that this suit be continued. The Court:
• has not yet set a dismissal date for this suit, and the Department
recommends that the date for dismissal of this suit be. .
—IU has pieviuusly sct-tfae-dismiissal dale fui Lhis suit as .Mgy:2S^l2uui-
which is consistent with the current permanencyplan.
• has previously set the dismissal date for this suit as
which is not consistent with the current permanency plan. The Court has
not yet granted a dismissal extension under TFC § 263.401 and the
Department recommends that anew dismissal date be set for _.
An extension of the date for dismissal of this suit under TFC § 263.401, has not been
previously granted inthis case.
SERVICE
PERMANENCY PLAN/PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
NAME:
PAGE 3
All parties have been served.
COMPLIANCE WITH TEMPORARY ORDERS AND WITH THE SERVICE
PLAN
5.1 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
PARENTS
Maria and Diana Fiores were to have a psychological evaluation.
Home studies were to be done on family members interested in having
Diana live with them. Maria, Diana, Cindy and Melinda will all
participate in individual counseling and family therapy as necessary.
5.2 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE
Maria and Diana have both had psychological evaluations. Home
studies were ordered on Maria's grandmother, but the grandmother
would miss her appointments and did not cooperate with the worker
doing the home study. They all attended counseling until B.J.
Mayben dismissed Cindy and Melinda from care and later dismissed
Maria. Diana continued counseling until B.J. Mayben dismissed her
—^ because she would not discuss the sexual abuse. Each time the
counselor tried to get her to work through the problem of the sexual
—^ abuse, she would change the subject. Diana told worker that her
mother and sisters did not try to influence her in regard to the court
case. However, Diana refused to testify and told this worker that she
did not want to see Daniel Dominguez go to jail because it would upset
her mother and sisters. Maria, Cindy and Melinda have telephone
calls with Mr. Domiiigue/. Diana hasTnnnmtgcfw^lratsofeverwKh Mrr
Dominguez.
—^ Diana Fiores is pregnant and due the first of June. She has prenatal
care. i"
5.3 SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE
DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDERS AND THE
SERVICE PLAN, INCLUDING REASONABLE EFFORTS TO
PURSUE THE PERMANENCY PLAN FOR THE CHILDREN.
The Department has arranged and paid for psychological evaluations
for both Diana and Maria Fiores. The Department has arranged and
PERMANENCY PLAN/PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
NAME:
PAGE 4
paid for counseling for Diana and Maria Fiores and Cindy and
Melinda Dominguez. Maria Fiores has not completed parenting
classes as ordered by the court but has discussed parenting issues with
therapist.
5.4 PROGRESS MADE TOWARD ALLEVIATING OR MITIGATING THE
CAUSES FOR THE CHILDREN'S REMOVAL FROM THE HOME
Daniel Dominguez received six years probation and is now currently
living with his sister at 3649 Swenson her in Abilene. There is still a
protective order in affect where Mr. Dominguez is not to go within
200 yards of the house at 873 Sycamore or the children's schools.
Maria states that she will not allow him to move back into the home.
Maria and Diana have attended counseling. This worker has not seen
any discourse between the mother and Diana or Diana and her sisters.
6. EVALUATION OF THE CHILDREN'S CURRENT PLACEMENT
6.1 PLACEMENT HISTORY
Name Type of placement Date placed
Diana Fiores Basic Care foster home 05/22/00
Diana Fiores Home 06/21/00
6.2 APPROPRIATENESS AND SAFETY OF CURRENT PLACEMENT
AND PROGRESS IN MEETING CHILD'S NEEDS
Diana is in the most appropriate placement, her home. It is safe as long as
Daniel Dominguez does not return home.
6.22 Least Restrictiveness
The placement is the least restrictive because she is placed in the home with
her mother and sisters.
6.222 APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY INSTITUTIONAL PLACEMENT
N/A
6.23 Close Proximity
PERMANENCY PLAN/PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
NAME:
PAGE 5
N/A
6.232 APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY OUT-OF-STATE PLACEMENT
N/A
6.3 CONTINUED NEED FOR PLACEMENT IN SUBSTITUTE CARE
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE CHILD'S CURRENT PERMANENCY PLAN(S)
The permanency plan for the child is:
\E1 Family Reunification
• Permanent Placement with Relative
• Transfer of Conservatorship
• Adoption
• Permanent Placement with Non-Reiative
• Transfer of Conservatorship
• Adoption
• Foster carewith long term commitment from foster family or facility
• Foster carewithno long term commitment from foster family or facility
• Other living arrangement:
[describe]
• Independent Living (child will be able to live on his or her own and
successfully manage his or her personal affairs.)
• Long Term Care in Adulthood (placement in an institution as an adult due
to a disability)
• with guardianship
• without guardianship
The approximate date for the achievement of this permanency plan - child is
currently living in the home.
PERMANENCY PLAN/PERMANENCY PROGRESS REPORT
NAME:
PAGE 6
8 PLANS, SERVICES, AND FURTHER TEMPORARY ORDERS NEEDED TO
MEET THE CHILD'S NEEDS FOR SAFETY AND PERMANENCY AND TO
ENSURE AN APPROPRIATE FINAL ORDER
81 IF THE PLAN IS REUNIFICATION, THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO
HAVE THE CHILD RETURN HOME AND REACH A LEGAL
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CASE.
Diana is currently living with her mother. Daniel Dominguez
received six years probation and is currently living with his sister at
3649 Swenson.
8.5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND ORDERS RECOMMENDED
N/A
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
DATE
3-4 -o r
DATE
Case Name: Fiores,Maria
Case #: 24046532
FAMILY SERVICE PLAN
Cover Sheet II: Family Preservation
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Narne(s) of Parents Date of Participation Date Plan Completed
Maria Fiores , Daniel Vasquez Dominguez 2/21/2001 3/5/2001
Child(ren)'s Name(s) , Month/Year of Next Review
Diana Fiores , Melinda Dominguez , Cindy Dominguez 6/2001
PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN
* , j»ntiB^Jte*weh«»©ntyi"^j^rfan^,or.
Yqa^nd^aurWfter • Maria Fiores will see that Diana follows medical advice regarding her pregnancy. She will make sure
that Diana is enrolled in WIC and follows her prenatal instructidnTfrom the doctor.
• Parent will demonstrate the ability to protect child from future abuse, and will show concern for
child's"future safety.
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS
PRS has determined that one of thefollowing emergency conditions continues to exist for this
case and, therefore, services continue to be necessary:
1) Achild is at risk ofabuse or neglect, as determined by PRS;
^r^chilcrh^b^eTrremDveTrfrc^ —
3) Achild formerly in PRS care is at-risk of being returned to PRS care. '
Tasks and Services for the Family
3/6/2001 • TX Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services page: 3
Case Name: Flores.Maria
Case #: 24046532
FAMILY SERVICE PLAN
Paren^winemonstrate the ability to protect child from future abuse, and will show concern for child's
future safety. II cPS/Other Service
Family Task
Discuss with family
Cooperate
Maria will cooperate with the Protective Order and Worker will discuss with the family the
she will not allow Daniel Dominguez to come to the consequences if Daniel Domingues breaks the
house at 823 Sycamore ortake Diane anywhere Protective Order.
Daniel Dominguez is present.
Court Ordered: Yes
Court Ordered: Yes
Beginning andEnding Dates (and/or Frequency) Beginning and Ending Date (and/or Frequency)
J 03/01 to 06/01
03/01 to 06/01
Method of Evaluation:
Discussion with family
Paren^wTdemonstrate the ability to protect child from future abuse, and will show concem for child's
future safety. . .
CPS/Other Service
Family Task
Cooperate Monitor and support
Maria Fiores will not allow any contact of any kind Worker will monitorthe home for compliance and
between Daniel Dominguez and Diana Fiores, support the family.
including phone calls or letters. Maria Fiores will
not allow Daniel Dominguez to live in the same
home with Diana Flores3 She will report to CPS if
Daniel Dominguez breaks the Protective Order.
Court Ordered: No
Court Ordered: Yes
Beginning andEnding Dates (and/or Frequency) Beginning and Ending Date (and/or Frequency)
03/01 to 06/01 ' 03/01 to 06/01
Method of Evaluation:
Monitoring in the home and discussion with family
Goal Description:
Maria Fiores will see that Diana follows medical advice regarding herjDregnancy. She will make sure
that Diana is enrolled in WiC and follows her prenata instructions from the doctor.
C PS/Other-Service-
-Family Task
Get medical help Discuss with family
Maria Fiores will see that Diana Fiores has medical Worker will discuss with the family the different
help through out her pregnancy. programs that Diana can access to help her
through her pregnancy.
Court Ordered: No Court Ordered: No
Beginning and Ending Dates (and/or Frequency) Beginning and Ending Date (and/or Frequency)
03/01 to 06/0.1 ' •"' 03/01 to 06/01 __
Method of Evaluation:
contact with the doctor
TX Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services Page: 4
Printed:
3/6/2001