in the Interest of A.C. ( 2013 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00679-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., J.C., and I.C.
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02712
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2013
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights to her
three children. 1 In a single issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court’s findings do not
support the termination. More specifically, appellant contends because the trial court failed to
make an oral finding that termination was in the children’s best interest, the oral findings do not
support the termination order. We disagree with appellant, and we affirm.
DISCUSSION
A trial court may terminate a parent’s parental rights if the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence at least one of the culpable grounds listed in Texas Family Code section
161.001(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
1
In the same Order of Termination, the trial court terminated the parental rights of the fathers of the three children.
None of the fathers have appealed.
04-12-00679-CV
§ 161.001(1), (2) (West Supp. 2012). A trial court may also terminate a parent’s parental rights
if the court finds that
(1) the parent has a mental or emotional illness or a mental deficiency that renders
the parent unable to provide for the physical, emotional, and mental needs of the
child;
(2) the illness or deficiency, in all reasonable probability, proved by clear and
convincing evidence, will continue to render the parent unable to provide for the
child’s needs until the 18th birthday of the child;
(3) the department has been the temporary or sole managing conservator of the
child of the parent for at least six months preceding the date of the hearing on the
termination held in accordance with Subsection (c);
(4) the department has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;
and
(5) the termination is in the best interest of the child.
Id. at § 161.003(a) (West 2008).
If the court finds the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, then the
court must render an order terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. at § 161.206(a). In this
case, the State alleged a variety of grounds under section 161.001(1) and allegations under
section 161.003 as its basis for asking that appellant’s parental rights be terminated. At trial,
witnesses testified appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia; she suffers from
hallucinations and paranoid delusions; she is inconsistent in taking her medication; and she is
unable to provide a safe place for the children. Following testimony, including from appellant,
the trial court orally pronounced as follows:
All right. We’re preceding under 161.003 of the Texas Family Code . . .
So with that the Court makes all necessary findings under 161.003 and 161.001
for all orders in this case. All findings necessary for these provisions to be met
are made by this Court. The Court therefore orders the relief requested by [the
State] is granted under 161.003 and 161.001
As to [appellant] the grounds are 161.003 that the burden has been met.
And should there be any doubt or confusion or ambiguity where that burden is
met, then the Court in the alternative has clear and convincing evidence under
161.001(O).
-2-
04-12-00679-CV
In its written order, signed on the same day as the termination hearing, the trial court
terminated appellant’s parental rights pursuant to Family Code section 161.001(O) and section
161.003. The court also found termination to be in the children’s best interest.
On appeal, appellant asserts that because the oral pronouncement did not include a best
interest finding, the oral pronouncement is not sufficient to support termination. When there is
an inconsistency between a written judgment and an oral pronouncement of judgment, the
written judgment controls. In re M.L.S., No. 11-12-00042-CV, 2012 WL 2371042, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Eastland June 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (although trial court’s oral pronouncement
only included findings that appellant’s parental rights should be terminated based on section
161.001(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P), written judgment also included finding that her rights should be
terminated under subsection (R)); see also In re A.S.G., 345 S.W.3d 443, 448 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2011, no pet.) (final written order in suit affecting parent-child relationship did not
award attorney’s fees controlled over oral pronouncement awarding such fees). Here, to the
degree there is any inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the written termination
order, the written order controls. Therefore, we overrule appellant’s issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s Order of Termination.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
-3-