in the Interest of D. L. D., Jr., L. L.S., J. J. S., H. N. S., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-15-00160-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/19/2015 4:04:20 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
No. 01-15-00160-CV
______________________________________ FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 6/19/2015 4:04:20 PM
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTONCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
__________________________________ Clerk
In the Interest of D.L.D., L.L.S., J.J.S., H.N.S., Children
__________________________________
J.T.D. [mother], Appellants
v.
Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee
_______________________________________
On appeal from the 313th Judicial District
of Harris County, Texas; No. 2013-05778J
____________________________________
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
____________________________________
VINCE RYAN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
State Bar #99999939
Sandra D. Hachem (SBN 08667060)
Sr. Assistant County Attorney
1019 Congress, 175h Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 274-5293
Facsimile: (713) 437-4700
Email: sandra.hachem@cao.hctx.net
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE,
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY &
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
[If deemed necessary]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................iv
REPLY POINT .......................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 14
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 17
REPLY POINT ONE: Nothing in the court’s conduct during trial
reflects error and does not provide a basis for reversal. ............................. 17
REPLY POINT TWO: The evidence sufficiently supported the court’s
finding that parental termination was in the children’s best interest ........ 20
1. Appellant’s Claim, the Law and Standard of Review .................... 20
2. There was sufficient proof for the trier of fact’s finding that
termination was in the children’s best interest considering the
evidence in support of Subsections D, E and O, and
particularly, the proof that the mother had a pattern of neglect,
and engaged in illegal drug and prostitution activities after the
children came into care demonstrating her lack of commitment
to the parent-child relationship. ............................................................. 23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................... 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 31
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE ........................................... 31
Appendix ......................................................................................................(attached)
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26 (Tex. 2002).. .................................................21, 22, 27
Earvin v. Dept. of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 229 S.W.3d 345
(Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). .................................................. 29
In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742
(Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). ........................................... 21
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) .............................................................. 27
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. 1985) ........................................................... 21
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) ....................................................... 24
I.K.B. Ind. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) ............ 25
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) ................................................................. 22
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex.2009) ............................................................... 20
M.M.V. v. Tex. Dept of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 455 S.W.3d 186
(Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2014. no pet.) ...................................................17
P.W. v. Dept. of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 403 S.W.3d 471
(Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). .................................. 20
In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.)....................... 29
In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)................................................................. 23
STATUTES
Tex. Fam. Code An. §101.007 (West 2014) ............................................................ 22
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §161.001 (West 2008) ........................................ iv, 20, 21, 25
iii
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §263.307 (West 2014) ....................................................24, 26
RULES
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1................................................................................................. 17
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 18, 2013, the Department filed a suit for protection of four children
all under the age of 6. CR1 4. A second amended petition was filed on August 21,
2014. CR 55. A bench trial was held January 20, 2015. CR 85. A judgment was
thereafter signed on February 3, 2015 that terminated the parent-child relationships
of the mother (JTD) and the unknown and alleged fathers Charles, Rodney, and
Troy. Id. JTD’s parental rights were terminated based on findings that it was in the
children’s best interest and that she committed the predicate acts of Subsection D,
E, and O of Section 161.001(1) of the Family Code. CR 87-88. The Department
was named the sole managing conservator of the three youngest children and
Darrell, the biological father of DLD, was named the sole managing conservator of
DLD. CR 90. JTD did not file a motion for new trial.
1
In this brief “CR” refers to the Clerk’s record filed in this appeal.
iv
REPLY POINTS
REPLY POINT ONE: Nothing in the court’s conduct during trial reflects
error and does not provide a basis for reversal.
REPLY POINT TWO: The evidence sufficiently supported the court’s
finding that parental termination was in the children’s best interest
v
No. 01-15-00160-CV
______________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
__________________________________
In the Interest of D.L.D., L.L.S., J.J.S., H.N.S., Children
__________________________________
J.T.D. [mother], Appellants
v.
Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee
_______________________________________
On appeal from the 313th Judicial District
of Harris County, Texas; No. 2013-05778J
___________________________________
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
___________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee, [hereinafter
“Department”] submits this brief in response to the brief of ALT.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
JTD (appellant) was born in 1986. RR-5 p. 78. When she was 21 years of
age, she gave birth to her oldest child, a son (DLD), in the early summer of 2007 in
Louisiana. RR-5 p. 14. Her next child, another son (LLS) was born in the early
spring of 2010 in Louisiana. RR-5 16. Her third child (JJS), another little boy, was
born in the early spring of 2011 in Louisiana. RR-5 p. 18. Her fourth child (HNS),
a little girl, was born in the spring of 2012 in Louisiana. RR-5 p. 20.
On July 4, 2013, the Department received a report of neglectful supervision
concerning the oldest child. RR-5 p. 36. It was reported that he was touched
inappropriately by a younger cousin and the mother failed to take steps to make her
child safe. RR-5 p. 36. A few days later, the Department received another report.
RR-5 p. 36. This time it was reported that all of the children were placed in a
situation of inadequate supervision and sexual abuse. RR-5 p. 36.
It was learned the family had no support system, and had been homeless for
a while without employment. RR-3 p. 37. JTD as well as her sister, and their
children, had been receiving housing at a Women’s Shelter, but were left homeless
due to family violence which resulted in them losing that housing. RR-5 p. 36. It
appeared that JTD had undiagnosed mental issues. RR-5 p. 37. JTD stated she
was raised in foster care for being molested by her biological father. RR-5 p. 37. It
was noted that the youngest child had a club foot. RR-5 p. 37.
On July 18, 2013, a suit was filed by the Department for the children in
Montgomery County. CR 4. The Department was named the children’s temporary
managing conservator that same date. Appendix, Attachment 1. At the subsequent
adversary hearing, the Department signed an order advising JTD that her parental
rights could be restricted or terminated if she failed to comply with the actions
2
required of her in the court’s order. Appendix, Attachment 2 (para 11). One of
those actions involved the requirement that she comply with the Department’s
service plan during the pendency of the suit. Id. (para 20.5). The court also signed
a supplemental order that same date that specifically warned JTD that her failure to
attend hearings without good cause and failure to participate in the Family Plan of
Service could result in parental termination. Appendix, Attachment 3.
The next month, the Department prepared a Family Service Plan for JTD
with a target date for permanency goals of 7/18/2014. RR-3 p. 36. The plan stated
the Department’s concerns as of that month related to risk and safety as follows:
Children are all under the age of six. The family has been in homeless
shelters and was evicted from the last one. The sisters have a volatile
relationship which caused the eviction and the children are exposed to
this violence. [DLD] is 5, [LLS] is 3, [JJS] is 2, and [HNS] is 1 year
old. [HNS] has a club foot on the left side. None of the children are
hostile or aggressive or unusually disturbed, fussy; or irritable; or the
behavior of any child seen as provoking. None of the children in the
home fear retribution. Parent will be able to demonstrate an
understanding of her children's need for protection and stability.
It is unsure whether [JTD] has been diagnosed, however there is an
issue with stability. Past relationship history is sketchy causing
physical and emotional instability. The caregiver does not appear to
lack the knowledge of child development. [JTD] lacks the parenting
skills to meet the children's needs. [JTD] behavior of violating shelter
rules 2 times and being forced to leave is out of control. [JTD]’s
discipline measures nor behaviors seem violent or out or control. No
caregiver used any discipline measure that seemed harsh compared to
the misbehavior. No caregiver in the home was stressed about child
development issues. [JTD] appears to have undiagnosed mental
Issues. There are no indications of anyone in the home using drugs or
alcohol. There are no indications of [JTD] engaging in criminal
3
activities. [JTD] stated that she was raised in foster care for being
molested by her biological father. Parent will demonstrate an ability to
understand and meet her children's dally needs. She will develop a
plan for emergencies and support for unexpected contingencies.
The family appears to have no formal support in the way of a support
system. They have been homeless for a time, with no job or housing.
The oldest child who is of school age, has not been to school. Two of
the children have medical needs that have not been resolved, each of
which will involve a form of surgery. All caregivers show empathy
and attachment to the children. It is unknown if the children's needs
are placed above the caregiver's. None of the children are seen as a
burden or unwanted. The children are all treated the same by the
caregiver. [JTD] stated that HNS was supposed to wear legs braces
and she did not go back to the doctor to get them. The children
appeared to be physically cared for. Parent will demonstrate an
understanding of children's dally need for protection and parent’s
supervision. Parent will put her children's needs before her own.
There does not appear to be any form of cooperation or
communication between the sister that is working to resolve their life
choices at this time. The children are exposed to family arguments,
bullying, name calling and physical fights, two of the children need
some form of surgery. The family has been evicted from a shelter for
violence between the sisters. The children were also behind in their
immunizations. No child has shown signs of severe harm. None of the
caregivers have expressed a credible threat towards the children. None
of the children was born addicted to drugs or alcohol. None of the
children are in immediate danger of subsequent sexual abuse. There
are no signs of any premeditated, sadistic, or bizarre maltreatment.
[JTD] stated that she had no warnings and should have not been asked
to leave the shelter. This information was not consistent with the
shelter staff reports. [JTD] is not able to meet the needs of her 4
children due to not having a home. [JTD] stated that she was removed
from her family as a child and grew up in foster care because she was
sexually abused by her biological father. It is unknown if the incidents
are escalating in severity or occurring more frequently. It is unknown
if more types of abuse have been occurring. Parent will demonstrate
an ability to maintain appropriate housing and living condition.
4
Essentially there is no home or social environment. The family has no
home and no one other than themselves and a former foster mother as
a support system. [JTD] was living in the Women's Shelter in Conroe
which was appropriate for the children's needs. [JTD] was forced to
leave the shelter for not obeying shelter rules and fighting with her
sister. This was the second shelter she was asked to leave for the same
reasons. This behavior exposes dangers to the children due to them
not having a home. The family is not supported by extended family.
The caregiver’s social relationships are not negative. [JTD] was a
victim and perpetrator of domestic violence with her sister [BS]. No
one has a history of violent behavior nor criminal involvement There
is not an imbalance of power between the adults. Parent will
demonstrate an ability to maintain a healthy, drug free lifestyle with
an positive support system.
During the investigation the family was warned that cooperation's
between the sisters was essential to keeping their placement at the
shelter and the consequences of losing their placement at the shelter
would result in removal. Every caregiver took the allegations very
serious and appeared concerned. None of the caregivers are
unmotivated or unrealistic. None of the caregivers displayed any
hostility towards FPS. None of the caregivers attempted to mislead
FPS. Parent will demonstrate an understanding of Intervention and
accept the services available to her In order to improve her situation
and improve the safety of her children.
While the sisters have remained together, their relationship has
become on of bickering and violence toward one another. Their
children have become the center of this verbal and physical lifestyle.
It is difficult to protect children when the lifestyle involves violence
and issues of insecurity and indecision. All caregivers appear willing
to protect the children from anybody who may inflict serous harm.
There are no indications that children are being pressured to recant
allegations. The family is not supported by family. The caregiver does
not describe the children in negative terms. [JTD] rejected protective
interventions by getting asked to leave the shelter with no where for
her or her young children to go.· Parent will demonstrate an
understanding of the characteristics needed for the development and
safety of her children.
5
RR-3 p. 37-38.
A status hearing was held in September 2013 and the court signed an order
on September 11, 2013 that found the mother signed and reviewed the service plan.
RR-2 p. 12; Appendix, Attachment 4. The service plans were approved and made
an order of the court. Id. In October, the case was transferred to Harris County.
Appendix, Attachment 5. On December 10, 2013, a permanency hearing was held
that again approved the Department’s service plan and ordered that the prior orders
in the case to continue. Appendix, Attachment 6. The service plan was approved
in subsequent orders of the court until trial was held in November of 2014. See
Appendix, Attachment 7 (4/1/14) and Attachment 8 (11/11/14).
A bench trial commenced on November 11, 2014. RR-2 p. 1.
The first witness was Darrell, the father of DLD. RR-2 p. 14. He stated that
DLD was seven years old. RR-2 p. 15. He also confirmed that DLD had been with
him since July of 2014 and was progressing and doing well. RR-2 p. 14. Darrell
stated that DLD had no behavioral or medical issues. RR-2 p. 15. DLD was doing
well in school and scored over average in every subject but math. RR-2 p. 14.
Darrell stated he had been living with a woman for two and a half years and
they had three children together of their own. RR-2 p. 15 and p. 18. He stated that
DLD played with their three children and did well with them. RR-2 p. 14. Also,
though Darrell was in Louisiana, he would bring DLD every other couple of weeks
6
to see his siblings. RR-2 p. 17-18. He stated he was willing to continue DLD’s
sibling relationship. RR-2 p. 17.
Darrell stated that DLD seldom asked about his mother. RR-2 p. 19. He
stated since DLD was placed with him, his mother only contacted by placing a call
for him on his birthday. RR-2 p. 19. The court confirmed visits were not cut off
and she missed the last two Houston-based visits. RR-2 p. 20.
Darrell stated that he was employed at Burger King and had been working
there as a shift manager for two years. RR-2 p. 15-16. He stated he wanted to be
the sole managing conservator of DLD. RR-2 p. 16. He wanted the mother’s
parental rights terminated because there were previous instances where she took
the child from him. RR-3 p. 17-18.
Bruce Jefferies, owner of National Screening Center and National
Assessment Center, was the second witness to testify. RR-3 p. 7. He stated that he
was the custodian of records for that Center. RR-3 p. 8. He noted there was a drug
test showing the mother tested positive for cocaine in her hair, and a urinalysis that
was clean. RR-3 p. 8 & 9. He stated Petitioner’s 17 contained a positive test and it
meant she ingested cocaine in her body. RR-3 p. 13. He could not say how much
usage from the amount that showed up on the test, and noted it could be a two-time
occurrence. RR-3 p. 13.
7
Bruce was asked to describe how she acted the prior Thursday when she
came to the Center. RR-3 p. 9-10. He said she entered the office and began to
curse loudly and used the F word several times. RR-3 p. 10. He stated it would not
have been appropriate for children to be around that behavior and Bruce
commented he was embarrassed for her. RR-3 p. 14.
The next witness was the mother JTD. RR-3 p. 20. She stated she was 28
years of age and the mother of the four subject children. RR-3 p. 20. She stated
they had been in care since 2014. RR-3 p. 21. She stated that CPS actually got
involved in her life in Montgomery County but the case was transferred to Harris
County because she moved. RR-3 p. 21.
She acknowledged her children came into care because she was kicked out
of a Women’s homeless shelter in Montgomery County and had no other place to
go. RR-3 p. 21. She acknowledged besides the Montgomery County Women’s
Shelter, she had lived at Star of Hope for 90 days. RR-3 p. 23. She stated she was
in the Montgomery County Women’s Shelter for two weeks, after staying at Star
of Hope. RR-3 p. 24.
When her children were originally placed in CPS care it was in Montgomery
County. RR-3 p. 24. She stated she moved to Houston even though her children
were placed in Montgomery County, because she did not have any place to stay but
with her foster mom in Houston. RR-3 p. 24. She acknowledged she still did not
8
have a safe and stable place to stay. RR-3 p. 25-26. She also acknowledged that
while she put in an application to get housing on January 6 that was well over a
year after her children came into care. RR-3 p. 26. She also acknowledged that she
was not employed. RR-3 p. 27.
JTD acknowledged she was given a Family Plan of Service, reviewed it and
signed it. RR-3 p. 28. She also acknowledged that it was explained to her that if
she failed to complete her Family Plan of Service, her rights could be limited or
terminated. RR-3 p. 29-30. She admitted she had not completed her Family Plan
of Service. RR-3 p. 32.
In particular, she acknowledged she had not completed individual or family
therapy. RR-3 p. 29-30. She also acknowledged she had not made all the visits to
her children. RR-3 p. 30. However, she stated she completed parenting classes, a
psychiatric and psychological assessment and saw the assessments. RR-3 p. 29.
JTD also stated she was self-employed, with a DBA (“Doing Business As”)
and was in sewing school at “Thimble Fingers.” RR-3 p. 31. She stated she was
not sure how long it would take to get her business on the ground but was working
on a website and practicing. RR-3 p. 32. She acknowledged it was not fair to ask
her children to wait for her to get a business going and stable housing and to be
waiting all this time. RR-3 p. 38.
9
JTD stated she loved her children very much and realized the extreme
importance of the Family Plan of Service. RR-3 p. 41. She confirmed she started
her psychiatric in November and December and knew they were trying to help her,
but she had not been back due to transportation. RR-3 p. 42. Namely, she claimed
she did not have funds to pay anyone to take her back and forth. RR-3 p. 42. She
stated she had a similar problem in participating in individual psychological
counseling. RR-3 p. 44. Later she stated she had done the psychological and tried
to make an appointment but they were full. RR-3 p. 44.
JTD stated she applied for jobs, but she had dyslexia and could not work at a
restaurant. RR-3 p. 43. She stated job training would not help her because she
could not keep up. RR-3 p. 45. She stated she came to visits with the children and
would bring toys. RR-3 p. 44.
Later, when asked if she had refused to answer a question by the court about
her living situation, she responded, “Because that’s irrelevant.” RR-3 p. 47. When
asked if that was a “yes or a no” she admitted, “Yes.” RR-3 p. 47.
JTD also acknowledged she failed to do things that did not require money.
RR-3 p. 48. She acknowledged she tested positive for cocaine while this case was
pending. RR-3 p. 33. She also acknowledged she had not taken all of her drug
tests. RR-3 p. 33. She further acknowledged she was arrested for prostitution on
November 22, 2014 and pled guilty. RR-3 p. 34.
10
JTD stated she moved from Louisiana in 2012. RR-3 p. 36. She stated the
alleged father of JJS came to the house maybe three times. RR-3 p. 35-36. She
stated she had contact with Rodney the alleged father of LLS for a month and the
last time she heard from him was in Louisiana. RR-3 p. 36. She had contact with
Charles for a couple of months but they were not together when she gave birth to
her youngest child. RR-3 p. 37.
The next witness was the children’s caseworker, John Gregory. RR-3 p. 49.
John stated he had been on this case since Mid-October of 2014. RR-3 p. 73. He
stated that JTD indicated she wanted her children back and would work hard to get
them back. RR-3 p. 76. In that connection, John tried to help her get a job and
housing. RR-3 p. 76.
Nevertheless, John observed she did not try hard while he was working this
case and John believed she had been given ample time in the year and half while
this case was pending to complete her services. RR-3 p. 79. Also, John noted she
was somewhat uncooperative because while JTD told him she was living with
someone, she did not provide her address where she was living. RR-3 p. 50and p.
81. John did not go to the address on their impact system because it was not her
home. RR-3 p. 50.
John stated he provided JTD with resources where she could obtain suitable
housing for her children, but, to his knowledge, she did not reach out to those
11
resources. RR-3 p. 50. He also provided her with resources for employment, but
she never provided proof that she put in any applications anywhere or that she
actively sought employment. RR-3 p. 51-52.
John stated he did not believe JTD successfully completed her Family
Service Plan. RR-3 p. 55. He acknowledged JTD completed parenting classes, a
psychiatric evaluation, a psychological evaluation and five sessions of individual
counseling. RR-3 p. 52. However, she did not complete the individual counseling
therapy, and did not obtain stable employment. RR-3 p. 52. She also was not
consistent in her visiting until recently and only had three or four in recent months.
RR-3 p. 53. He stated the case file indicates there were months when the mother
had no contact with the Department. RR-3 p. 82. He stated just since he became
the caseworker, she missed two or three of her visits with the children. RR-3 p. 82.
Moreover, when John observed visits between her and the children, he did
not see that she exhibited anything she learned from parenting classes. RR-3 p. 53.
John also noted that one of the children called her by her name rather than as
“mom” and that showed a lack of bondage between them. RR-3 p. 54-55.
John also noted while drugs was not an issue when the case came in, it did
become an issue while this case was pending in September when she tested
positive for cocaine. RR-3 p. 55 & 57. In that connection, John noted she was not
compliant with her drug tests. RR-3 p. 56. Although John asked her to take three
12
tests, she only took one the week before trial. RR-3 p. 56. In addition, JTD was
arrested for prostitution while this case was pending. RR-3 p. 58. John stated that
he did not discover that JTD had dyslexia until hearing it that day at trial and was
unaware that she discussed any other medical conditions. RR-3 p. 77.
John stated he believed all of the children were in unstable living
environment prior to coming into care. RR-3 p. 84. John stated that the oldest
child seemed happy now that he was living with his father and was
developmentally on target. RR-3 p. 62. He noted the case file indicated DLD was
not potty trained and he had issues with ADHD and phobia and hallucinations
throughout this case, but to his knowledge, he was doing good and a lot better in
school. RR-3 p. 62 and p. 81. He also noted that the oldest child was still having
visits with his three younger siblings. RR-3 p. 62.
John stated the three younger siblings were placed in the same foster home
and had been there since December 18, 2014. RR-3 p. 63. Though it had only
been a month, he commented he had seen a complete turnaround for them. RR-3 p.
83. For example, when the children first came in care they were all
developmentally delayed. RR-3 p. 81. In particular, these children had potty
training issues. RR-3 p. 64. Three of them were now potty trained. RR-3 p. 64.
John noted one of the children, LLS, has an issue with hearing and speech.
RR-3 p. 63 and p. 81. Also, the youngest child has a clubfoot and there are also
13
concerns about her sight and a heart murmur. RR-3 p. 63. That child was referred
for orthopedic surgery regarding her clubfoot as well as an opthamologist and
cardiologist. RR-3 p. 63. The child, JJS, was observed to have average functioning
with adjustment disorder and aggression. RR-3 p. 63. John stated the children’s
placement was catering to their special issues, medical issues, as well as all of their
physical and emotional needs. RR-3 p. 64 and p. 83-84. John also stated despite
the children’s problems, the adoptive family wants to adopt all three of these
children forever. RR-3 p. 64 and p. 84.
The next witness, Morgan Jackson, a volunteer with child advocates,
testified that they had been appointed as ad litems in this case for the majority of
the case. RR-3 p. 85. Morgan stated during a recent visit with the new placement,
he observed that the kids bonded with their family and the biological children.
RR-3 p. 86. He saw improvement in their communication skills and the foster
mother said they are potty trained. RR-3 p. 86. Morgan stated he personally spent
time alone with LLS and found he communicates well and seems to have improved
in the new placement. RR-3 p. 86.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Appellant’s Brief raises two complaints in this appeal. The first complaint is
about specific remarks made at trial that the brief claims show a lack of control,
insensitivity and court decorum. The second complaint challenges the sufficiency
14
of the evidence to support the court’s finding that parental termination is in the
children’s best interest. Neither complaint proves error at trial or basis for reversal.
With respect to the first complaint, this claim was not preserved. The
mother’s attorney made absolutely no complaint or suggestion at trial that the court
was being disrespectful to his client or improper at trial and, therefore this
complaint was not preserved for appellate review. Moreover, Appellant’s Brief
fails to prove anything was disrespectful or improper as alleged.
The brief first refers to questioning propounded upon the father of the oldest
child concerning whether Whoppers or Texas Double Whoppers were served at the
Burger King where he worked. The brief characterizes this as an example of
silliness in the courtroom. Nevertheless, the brief fails to explain how that is silly
when it was quite appropriate to ask the father questions to determine if he actually
knew what was served at the Burger King where he claimed he worked.
In addition, the brief characterizes the judge’s comment “that’s bad luck” as
a disrespectful in response to the mother’s admission that she went to jail for
prostitution during this case. However, again, the record does not prove that was
disrespectful. Considering the situation, it was more than likely the court made
that comment to let the mother know he was remorseful for her concerning that
occurrence. Lastly, the brief refers to dialog in the record when the court was
trying to tell the mother to listen to the question, but she kept interrupting the judge
15
and he finally stated, “Shut up.” While the words “Shut up” are not a gentle way
to tell a witness to be quiet, it is apparent the mother did not understand the court’s
attempts to get her to listen to the question. This in no way proves the court was
being either disrespectful or lacking decorum. If anything it was the mother who
was being discourteous and disrespectful by interrupting the judge.
In addition, with respect to the claim that there is legally and factually
insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that termination was in the
children’s best interest, this claim is without merit. First, the predicate acts for
parental termination were established conclusively as a matter of law under
Subsections D, E and O and those grounds, not challenged in this appeal,
supported the court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Also, in
that connection, the record was undisputed the mother committed negligent acts
that resulted in her losing any means to care for her children, even with the
assistance of shelters, and she not only failed to comply with the court’s order for
reunification, but also committed criminal acts involving illegal drug use and
prostitution during this case, and by the time of trial had no employment or home
for the children, though they had been in care for a year and a half.
In the meantime, the oldest child had been transition into the home of the
man determined to be his father and was being well cared for. He also was able to
continue contact with his other siblings who were also being well cared for by a
16
foster family that desired to adopt them. On these facts, the court had conclusive
support for the decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The judgment
should be affirmed.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
REPLY POINT ONE: Nothing in the court’s conduct during trial reflects
error and does not provide a basis for reversal.
The first claim in Appellant’s Brief selects different questioning and
comments made at trial to try and argue that the trial was so disrespectful and
lacking in decorum as to support reversal of this case. Such claim is without merit.
First, this claim is not preserved. The rules of appellate procedure require
complaints on appeal to be preserved by being presented with specific articulation
to the trial court and with opportunity for the trial court to rule upon the complaint.
See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. As acknowledged by this court, that basic procedural
requirement applies to parental termination cases. M.M.V. v. Tex. Dept of Fam. &
Prot. Servs., 455 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2014. no pet.).
Nevertheless, that did not occur in this case. Therefore, this point should be
overruled as waived.
In addition, this claim is without merit. None of the instances cited in
Appellant’s Brief prove the trial court lacked proper decorum or was disrespectful.
If anything, the record proves that JTD was the one who was disrespectful
throughout these proceedings. For example, she admitted when she had been
17
asked during this case on numerous occasions where she was living she refused to
answer to both the court and the caseworker. RR-3 p. 47. Also, when she was
asked to admit she had refused to answer about her living situation to the court
before, she tried to avoid admitting that fact by stating: “that’s irrelevant.” RR-3 p.
47. In addition, the owner of the drug center where JTD came to do a drug test the
week before testified that she entered his office cursing loudly and using the F
word several times. RR-3 p. 10. Considering these undisputed facts, it is easy to
see who was actually disrespectful during these serious proceedings.
Moreover, the examples given in Appellant’s Brief do not prove the
disrespect and lack of decorum claimed. The brief first refers to questioning
propounded upon the father of the oldest child concerning whether Whoppers or
Texas Double Whoppers were served at the Burger King where he worked.
Appellant’s Brief at p. 31-32. The brief characterizes this as an example of
silliness in the courtroom. Nevertheless, the brief fails to explain how that is silly
when it was clear this was asked after the father stated he was employed in
Louisiana at Burger King. RR-3 p. 16-17. Consequently, the questions were likely
asked to confirm he was telling the truth about that employment, because those
answers would show if he actually knew what was served at the restaurant where
he worked.
18
In addition, the brief characterizes the judge’s comment “that’s bad luck” as
a disrespectful comment in response to the mother’s admission that she went to jail
for prostitution during the pendency of this case. Appellant’s Brief at p. 33.
However, again, the record does not prove that was disrespectful. Considering the
situation, it was more than likely the court made that comment to let the mother
know he felt bad for her and was remorseful about this occurrence. Lastly, the
brief refers to dialog in the record when the court was trying to tell the mother to
listen to the question, but she kept interrupting the judge and he finally stated,
“Shut up.” Appellant’s Brief at p. 34. While the words “Shut up” are not gentle
and not the usual way a judge tells a witness to be quiet, this may have been
necessary under the circumstances. It is apparent the mother kept talking even
though the court tried to get her to listen. The court may have found no other way
to help her understand the importance of listening when so instructed by the court.
This in no way proves the court was being either disrespectful or lacking decorum.
If anything it was the mother who was being discourteous and disrespectful by
interrupting the judge.
Just as an appellate court is not supposed to speculate that an attorney was
ineffective when the record does not explain why the attorney did or did not do
something, this court should not speculate that the trial judge was being
inappropriate and disrespectful when there is no explanation of what the court’s
19
motivations were or what the court perceived were necessary actions to maintain
decorum and proper procedure. See P.W. v. Dept. of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 403
S.W.3d 471, 476 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). In
fact, as in the review of a claim of ineffective assistance, this court should indulge
a strong presumption that the judge’s conduct fell within the wide range of
reasonable professional decorum, including the possibility it was strategic to move
the proceedings along in a respectful and appropriate direction. Id. The
deficiencies listed in Appellant’s Brief not only require this court to speculate, but
hardly can be described as inappropriate, and, as such do not constitute actions that
could warrant reversal under the standards provided at Tex. R. App. P. 44.1. This
first point should be overruled.
REPLY POINT TWO: The evidence sufficiently supported the court’s
findings for termination of JTD’s parental rights.
1. The Claims, the Law and Standard of Review
Parental rights can be terminated upon proof by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the parent committed an act prohibited by section 161.001(1) of
the Family Code; and (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1), (2) (West 2014); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344
(Tex. 2009). The trial court’s judgment in this case found the mother (JTD)
committed the predicate acts described at subsections D, E, and O of section
20
161.001(1) of the Family Code and that parental termination was in the children’s
best interest. CR 87-88.
JTD does not challenge the court’s findings that she committed the predicate
acts described at Subsections D, E and O of Section 161.001(1) of the Family Code
in support of parental termination. She only challenges the finding in support of
the court’s decision that parental termination was in the children’s best interest.
Moreover, she does not challenge the portion of the judgment with the findings
supporting the appointment of the Department as the sole managing conservator of
the three younger children and Darrell as the sole managing conservator of the
oldest child. The findings that are not challenged in this appeal, are important to
the scope of this court’s review because unchallenged findings are binding on the
appellate court. See In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th
Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).
In evaluating this appeal, it is acknowledged involuntary termination of
parental rights is a serious matter implicating fundamental constitutional rights.
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.3d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). However, it is also acknowledged
that a child’s emotional and physical interests cannot be sacrificed merely to
preserve that right. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26 (Tex. 2002).
To address the seriousness of this claim, the Family Code imposes a
heightened standard of proof at trial described as “clear and convincing.” See Tex.
21
Fam. Code Ann. §161.001 (West 2008). The Family Code also specifically defines
that standard to mean “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind
of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations
sought to be established.“ Tex. Fam. Code An. §101.007 (West 2014).
The heightened standard of proof at trial requires an appellate court to
consider that standard when reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at p. 25 (Tex. 2002) (“burden of proof at trial
necessarily affects appellate review of the evidence.”); In the Interest of J.F.C., 96
S.W.3d 256, 265-66 (Tex. 2002). In that connection, both legal and factual
sufficiency challenges consider the standard of proof for clear and convincing
evidence by considering whether the evidence is such that a fact-finder could
reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State's
allegations. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at p. 25 (Tex. 2002); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d
at pp. 265-66; Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 101.007 (West 2014).
In In re J.F.C. the Supreme Court explained, in light of the identical
inquiries made to the clear and convincing standard, the distinction between legal
and factual sufficiency when the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence
may be a fine one in some cases, but clarified that there is a distinction in how the
evidence is reviewed. 96 S.W.3d at p. 266. The court explained that in a legal
sufficiency review, a court should look at all of the evidence in the light most
22
favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have
formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true, giving appropriate
deference to the trier of fact. Id. In a factual sufficiency review, a court of appeals
must give due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have
found to be clear and convincing and with respect to disputed evidence, a court
should consider whether the disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder
could not have resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its finding. Id. If, in light
of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not
have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not
reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually
insufficient. 96 S.W.3d at pp. 266-67.
2. There was sufficient proof for the trier of fact’s finding that
termination was in the children’s best interest considering the evidence
in support of Subsections D, E and O, and particularly, the proof that
the mother had a pattern of neglect, and engaged in illegal drug and
prostitution activities after the children came into care demonstrating
her lack of commitment to the parent-child relationship.
A strong presumption exists that the best interest of the child is served by
keeping the child with its natural parent. In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222, 230 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Nevertheless, when children come
into care because a parent is neglectful to their basic needs, the parental
presumption cannot prevail over their safety. In that connection, Section
263.307(a) provides a prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe
23
environment is presumed in a child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
263.307(a) (West 2014). Section 263.307(b) of the Family Code lists a number of
factors a court may consider in deciding a parent’s willingness to provide a child
with a safe environment and, those factors consider issues such issues as parental
drug use and the willingness to cooperate with the Department for reunification,
factors relevant in this case. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 263.307(b) (8) & (10).
In addition, the Supreme Court has articulated a number of factors that can
also be considered in determining the best interest of the child. Those factors
include: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the present and future physical and
emotional needs of the child; (3) the present and future emotional and physical
danger to the child; (4) the parental abilities of the persons seeking custody; (5) the
programs available to assist those persons seeking custody in promoting the best
interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the individuals or agency seeking
custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) acts or omissions
of the parent which may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not
appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent's acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams,
544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex.1976); In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230.
Needs and Dangers
As already discussed, Appellant’s Brief does not challenge the court’s
finding in support of Subsections D, E and O, and, as such, are binding in this
24
court’s review. See I.K.B. Ind. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440,
445 (Tex. 1997). The unchallenged findings of Subsections D, E and O involve
findings that the parent endangered the children by allowing them to remain in
dangerous conditions, engaging in conduct that jeopardized their well-being, and
warranted removal of the children for abuse or neglect under Chapter 262 of the
Family Code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §161.001(1) (West 2008). Those findings
likely were not challenged, because the evidence was largely undisputed in support
of those findings.
Namely, as stated in the risks summarized in Department’s Family Service
Plan, JTD had no place for her children at the time of removal because she had
been kicked out of the shelter where she was staying due to inappropriate violence
between her and her sister. RR-5 pp. 37-38. In this connection, it was noted the
children were exposed to family arguments, bullying, name calling and physical
fights, and that two of the children were in need of some form of surgery. Id. It
also appeared that JTD had some form of undiagnosed mental issue. Id. The
family appeared to have no support system, and had been homeless for a while
with no job. Id. Also, the oldest child, though of school age, had not been to
school, and two of the children had medical needs that had not been resolved. Id.
Under these undisputed facts, the court had more than sufficient evidence to find
conclusively that the mother had placed her children in a dangerous circumstances,
25
committed endangering acts that had the effect of endangering them and that her
neglect of these children’s basic needs warranted removal under Chapter 262 of the
Family Code.
Moreover, JTD neglectful behaviors that endangered her children and
required their removal at the beginning of this case did not get better after this case
was filed. JTD admitted she did not complete her court ordered family service
plan, including tasks she acknowledged did not require money. RR-3 pp. 32 and
48. She also acknowledged she tested positive for cocaine and did not take all her
required drug tests. RR-3 p. 33. She also admitted she was arrested for prostitution
on November 22, 2014 and pled guilty. RR-3 p. 34. Also, by the day of trial, a
year and a half after these children came into care, she admitted she was not
employed and still did not have a stable and safe place to stay. RR-3 p. 25-26 and
p. 27. Such facts proved conclusively that her neglectful behavior that endangered
her children and required their removal a year and a half earlier was not only
ongoing but even more neglectful with the addition of her criminal activities.
Under Section 263.307(b) of the Family Code, a court can consider whether
a parent has demonstrated willingness to effect positive environmental and
personal changes within a reasonable amount of time to address unsafe issues.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §263.307(b)(11) (West 2014). In this case, she did not.
Consequently, the court had sufficient basis to conclude that JTD’s inappropriate
26
neglect and illegal activities that she performed after this case was filed would
likely continue; meaning she lacked either ability or willingness to provide a safe
and stable home for the children. This provided sufficient support for the court’s
finding that parental termination was in the children’s best interest.
2. Stability and Compliance with Services
As already discussed the evidence is undisputed that ALT failed to comply
with her service plan. This evidence supports the court’s best interest finding. See
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27-28; See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013)
(noting reasons supporting finding under Subsection O may also support best
interest finding.). This is particularly true considering JTD acknowledged she
reviewed and signed the court ordered service plan, and knew her parental rights
could be terminated if she failed to complete it. RR-3 p. 28-30. Rather than doing
what was necessary to reunify, however, she involved herself in illegal activities
and made no improvements in her housing or job situation. On this evidence, the
court had sufficient basis to find parental termination was in the children’s best
interest.
3. Child’s Desires and Proposed Placement
JTD stated she loved her children. RR-3 p. 41. Nevertheless, there is no
evidence these children had a strong bond with her. In that regard, it was telling
that the oldest child seldom asked about her, and that JTD only contacted that child
27
by phone once on his birthday while he was placed with his father. RR-2 p. 19.
The caseworker also noted that one of the children called JTD by her name rather
than as “mom” and commented that showed a lack of bondage between them. RR-
3 p. 54-55. There is no evidence of how the other two children felt about JTD.
What is known, however, is that all of the children were in an unstable living
situation prior to coming into care. RR-3 p. 84. None of the children were potty
trained, including the oldest child (DLD) who was about five years of age at the
time of removal. RR-3 p. 64, pp. 80-81. It was noted that all of the children
improved after coming into care and the three older children became potty trained.
RR-3 p. 64.
Further, while the oldest child came into care with issues of ADHD, phobia
and hallucinations, he was doing good and a lot better in school by the time of trial.
RR-3 p. 62 and p. 81. He was placed with his biological father for many months,
taken off psychotropic medication, and seemed to be thriving. RR-3 p. 61. He was
observed as being happy with his father and developmentally on target. RR-3 p.
62.
The caseworker John stated the three younger siblings were placed in the
same foster home and had been there since December 18, 2014. RR-3 p. 63.
Though they had only been there a month, he commented that they made a
complete turnaround. RR-3 p. 83. He stated the children’s placement was catering
28
to their special issues, medical issues, as well as all of their physical and emotional
needs. RR-3 p. 64 and p. 83-84. John also stated despite the children’s problems,
the adoptive family wanted to adopt all of them forever. RR-3 p. 64 and p. 84. In
conclusion, the record in this case confirms sufficient evidence supporting the best
interest finding based on the proof that there was a good plan for their care and
permanency that appeared necessary in light of the mother’s failure to change her
neglectful behaviors. See In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877, 887–88 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2006, no pet.) (considering the parent's drug use, inability to provide a
stable home, and failure to comply with a family service plan in holding the
evidence supported the best interest finding).
It is acknowledged that the mother gave excuses for her lack of progress
testifying she had problems because of dyslexia and a lack of funds to travel to
services. Nevertheless, there is no evidence from a medical expert establishing she
had a diagnosis of “dyslexia,” or whether that condition could have actually
impeded her from getting a job as she was suggesting. The trier of fact is the
exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
testimony, and, as such, it was the trial court’s discretion to determine whether
JTD was really telling the truth about her claimed limitations. Earvin v. Dept. of
Fam. & Prot. Servs., 229 S.W.3d 345, 351 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2007,
no pet.).
29
Moreover, dyslexia and low cash flow does not excuse JTD’s inappropriate
use of the f-word several times at the drug testing center less than a week before
trial that was found to be inappropriate conduct around children. RR-3 p. 10 and
14. It also did not excuse her decision several times during these proceedings to
refuse to answer the court or the caseworker when asked about her current address.
RR-3 p. 47. It also does not explain why she was violent with her sister or why she
decided to engage in prostitution and cocaine use during this case. RR-3 p. 13, 34,
& pp. 37-38; Consequently, a trier of fact had more than sufficient basis to
conclude her excuses had no weight of significance to outweigh the evidence in
support of the court’s finding that parental termination was in the children’s best
interest. The judgment should be affirmed.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Department requests that
this court affirm the trial court’s judgment and for such other and further relief to
which it may be entitled in law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
VINCE RYAN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
By: /s/ Sandra Hachem
Sandra Hachem State Bar 08667060
Sr. Assistant County Attorney
1019 Congress, 17th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: 713/274-5293; Fax: 713/437-4700
30
Email: sandra.hachem@cao.hctx.net
Attorney for Appellee,
Department of Family & Protective Services
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 19th day of June, 2015 a true and correct
copy of the foregoing brief was sent to all parties to this appeal by sending a copy
by electronic transmission to the Appellant (JTD) care of her attorney of record,
Donald Crane at donmcrane@gmail.com, and a copy was also sent to the Attorney
ad Litem for the Children, Susan Solis, to her fax number at 281/317-9908.
/s/ Sandra Hachem
Sandra Hachem
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE
This is to certify, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), that the foregoing
computer generated brief consists of no more than 15,000 words, excluding the
caption, identify of parties and counsel, table of contents, index of authorities,
statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of procedural
history, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance and
appendix. Relying on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this
document, the number of words, subject to count under the rules, is 7,909 words.
/s/ Sandra Hachem
Sandra Hachem
31
No. 01-15-00160-CV
______________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
__________________________________
In the Interest of D.L.D., L.L.S., J.J.S., H.N.S., Children
__________________________________
J.T.D. [mother], Appellants
v.
Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee
_______________________________________
On appeal from the 313th Judicial District
of Harris County, Texas; No. 2013-05778J
APPENDIX
Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency
(signed July 18, 2013 – image #59475366)…………..Attachment 1
Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing
(signed July 30, 2013 – image #59475375)…………..Attachment 2
Supplemental Order to Appear and Warnings
(signed July 30, 2013 – image #59475376)…………..Attachment 3
Status Hearing Order
(signed September 11, 2013 – image #59475405)……Attachment 4
Order on Motion to Transfer
(signed October 7, 2013 – image #59475363)…….......Attachment 5
Permanency Hearing Order
(signed December 10, 2013 – image #59008416)……..Attachment 6
Permanency Hearing Order
(signed April 1, 2014 – image #60340390) ……………Attachment 7
Permanency Hearing Order
(signed November 11, 2014 – image #63354474)…………..Attachment 8
32
Tab 1
Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency
(signed July 18, 2013 – image #59475366)
)RU2IILFLDO*RYHUQPHQWDO8VH2QO\'R1RW'LVVHPLQDWHWRWKH3XEOLF3DJHRI
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475366 - Page 2 of 5
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475366 - Page 3 of 5
)RU2IILFLDO*RYHUQPHQWDO8VH2QO\'R1RW'LVVHPLQDWHWRWKH3XEOLF3DJHRI
)RU2IILFLDO*RYHUQPHQWDO8VH2QO\'R1RW'LVVHPLQDWHWRWKH3XEOLF3DJHRI
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this June 18, 2015
Certified Document Number: 59475366 Total Pages: 5
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
Tab 2
Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing
(signed July 30, 2013 – image #59475375)
.. 201305778J
CAUSE NO. -----!..\ ~-=--. O_1:..-·'_D:....-L_.lP_l_lo_
_.
IN THE INTEREST OF §
§
D L .::-J ~
L S ~ li
J DR~Crsrg?!`` §
H S U'~o" 1 U ~u)3 §§ '8-) 3th
r -/ ~ ~
CHILDREN
Time;....
Sy_
I I
HQrrI8CFo'ii'iiiY;-~_ L.ClQ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TEMPORARY ORDKt'iurcJLLOWING ADVERSARY HEARING
On July 30, 2013, a full adversary hearing pursuant to § 262.205, Texas Family Code, was held
in this cause.
1. Appearances
1.1. The Department of Family and Protective Services ("the Department") appeared
through AMY LOGGINS, caseworker, and by attorney, JOHN
LOCK\-VOOD/SARAH ST ALLBERG/DEBBIE GARCIA and announced
ready.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 1 of 20
1.2. Respon r D D , father of D
L D
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
announced ready.
o appeared in person and through attorney of record
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed.
o agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o ;!1though duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
~ was not notified, and did not appear.
o
LU
Z
Z
\.
~
'->
RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM V)
This instrument is of poor quality
at the time of imaging
Temporary Orders
Page 1 ASAP 11
1.3. Respondent Alleged Father R S , father of L
S
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
announced ready. .
o appeared in person and through attorney of record
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed.
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
D/although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
10' was not notified, and did not appear.
1.4. Respondent Alleged Father T H , father of J
S
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
c
announced ready. 0
o appeared in person and through attorney of record .~ =
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready. £
~
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed. t
&..
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below. ~ ~
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 2 of 20
~
lthOUgh duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default. O::::J
+-+-
was not notified, and did not appear. tn CS
a s::
"C.~
1.5. Respondent Alleged Father C S , father of H .~ V)
S '!: §
'-
~
o appeared in person and announced ready. ..
\J
o appeared through attorney of record _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and
announced ready.
o appeared in person and through attorney of record
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver du1y filed.
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o jtlthough duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
[j]/was not notified, and did not appear.
Temporary Orders
Page 2 ASAP 11
1.6. Respondent Mother J T S
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
)Ilfuounced ready.
B' a:1>i:ed in person and through attorney of record
M~ Or ebL- and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed.
o agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
o was not notified, and did not appear.
1.7. CASA appointed by the Court as Guardian Ad Litem of the children the subject
~
'ssuit,
appeared and announced ready.
agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear.
1.8. STEPHANIE HALL, appointed by the Court as Attorney Ad Litem of the ~
"f'ldren the subject of this suit, ~=
, . appeared and announced ready. .~ ~
agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below. ~ c
~ ~
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 3 of 20
although duly and properly notified, did not appear.
uL.
O::::J
1.9. Also Appearing -:;; t;
c s::
-c.~
Q)V)
't-£:
+-0
L.
2. Jurisdiction a.l
.\J
The Court, after examining the record and hearing the evidence and argument of counsel,
finds that all necessary prerequisites of the law have been satisfied and that this Court has
jurisdiction of this case and of all the parties.
3. Findings
3.1. Having examined and reviewed the evidence, including the sworn affidavit
accompanying the petition and based upon the facts contained therein, the Court
finds there is sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution
that: (1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the children which was
caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the
children to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the children; (2) the
urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the children and
reasonable efforts consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of
the children, were made to eliminate or prevent the children's removal; and (3)
reasonable efforts have been made to enable the children to return home, but there is
a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the children are returned home.
Temporary Orders
Page 3 ASAP 11
3~2. Findings for Appointment of Managing and Possessory Conservator
3.2.1. The Court finds that appointment of the parent or parents as managing
conservator of the children is not in the best interest of the children
because the appointment would significantly impair the children's physical
health or emotional development.
3.2.2. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of children to limit the rights
and duties of each parent appointed as possessory conservator.
3.2.3. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of children to limit the rights
and duties of each parent appointed as possessory conservator.
3.2.4. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of children to limit the rights
and duties of each parent appointed as possessory conservator.
3.2.5. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of children to limit the rights
and duties of each parent appointed as possessory conservator.
3.2.6. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of children to limit the rights
and duties of each parent appointed as possessory conservator.
3.3. The Court finds that the following orders for the safety and welfare of the children
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 4 of 20
are in the best interest of the children.
4. Appointment of Counsel for Parents or Parties
4.1. The Court finds that D D is a parent who has responded in
o e suit affecting the parent-child relationship, but that D .
D is not indigent. Therefore, no attorney ad litem is appointed to
represent the interests of this parent.
4.2. The Court finds that R S is a parent who has resp
opposition to the suit affecting the parent-child relationship, but that R
S is not indigent. Therefore, no attorney ad litem is appointed to represent the
interests of this parent.
4.3. The Court finds that T H is a parent who has responded in
opposition to the suit affecting the parent-child relationship, but that T
H is not indigent. Therefore, no attorney ad litem is appointed to represent
the interests of this parent.
4.4. The Court finds that C S is a parent who has responded in
opposition to the suit affecting the parent-child relationship, but that C
S is not indigent. Therefore, no attorney ad litem is appointed to
represent the interests of this parent.
Temporary Orders
Page 4 ASAP 11
4.5. The Court finds that J T S is a parent who has
responded in opposition to the suit affecting the parent-child relationship, but that
J T S is not indigent. Therefore, no attorney ad litem
is appointed to represent the interests of this parent.
5. Conservatorship
5.1. IT IS ORDERED that the Department of Family and Protective Services is
appointed Temporary Managing Conservator of the following children:
5.1.1. Name: D L D
Sex: Male
Birthplace:
Birth Date:
Indian Child Status: No
5.1.2. Name: L S
Sex: Male
Birthplace: Crowley, LA
Birth Date: s::
Indian Child Status: No 0
+-
a-
.~-~
5.L3. Name: J S
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 5 of 20
'+-
.- en
c:s
Sex: Male 1:c..
Birthplace: a)~
U L-
Birth Date: o ::J
+-+-
Indian Child Status: No ."a
as::
"C.~
5.1.4. Name: H S .~ V)
Sex: Female '+-c
+-
L-
0
Birthplace: Crowley, LA a)
Birth Date: .'->
Indian Child Status: No
5.2. IT IS ORDERED that the Temporary Managing Conservator shall have all the
rights and duties set forth in § 153.371, Texas Family Code.
5.2.1. IT IS ORDERED that, in addition to the rights and duties listed in
§ 153.371, Texas Family Code, the Department is authorized to consent to
medical care for the subject children, pursuant to § 266.004, Texas Family
Code.
Or
IT IS ORDERED that CPS OR APPROVED CAREGIVER is
authorized to consent to medical care for the subject children, pursuant to
§ 266.004(b)(1), Texas Family Code. This authorization is limited to the
provision of medical care services provided by the Medicaid program. At
Temporary Orders
PageS ASAP 11
the request of the Department, the named individual shall provide to the
Department a written summary of the medical care provided to the subject
children since the last hearing.
5.3. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that D D is appointed
Temporary Possessory Conservator of the child, , with the limited rights and duties
set forth in Attachment A.
5.4. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that R S is appointed
Temporary Possessory Conservator of the child, , with the limited rights and duties
set forth in Attachment A.
5.5. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that T H is appointed Temporary
Possessory Conservator of the child, , with the limited rights and duties set forth in
Attachment A.
5.6. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that C S is appointed
Temporary Possessory Conservator of the child, , with the limited rights and duties
set forth in Attachment A.
5.7. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that J T S is
appointed Temporary Possessory Conservator of the children, D L
D L S , J S and H S ,
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 6 of 20
w rights and duties set forth in Attachment A.
6. Possession and Access
The Court finds that the application of the guidelines for possession of and access to the
children, as set out in Subchapter F, Chapter 15 Fa not in the
children's best interest. IT IS ORDERED that D D shall have
limited access to and possession of ~he children as set forth in Attachment A.
The Court finds that the application of the guidelines for possession of and access to the
children, as set out in Subchapter F, Chapter 153 Family Code, is not in the
children's best interest. IT IS ORDERED that R S shall have limited
access to and possession of the children as set forth in Attachment A.
The Court finds that the application of the guidelines for possession of and access to the
children, as set out in Subchapter F, Chapter 153, Texas Family Code, is not in the
children's best interest. IT IS ORDERED that T H shall have limited
access to and possession of the children as set forth in Attachment A.
The Court finds that the application of the guidelines for possession of and access to the
children, as set out in Subchapter F, Chapter 153, Texas Fami not in the
children's best interest. IT IS ORDERED that C S shall have
limited access to and possession of the children as set forth in Attachment A.
Temporary Orders
Page 6 ASAP 11
The Court finds that the application of the guidelines for possession of and access to the
children, as set out in Subchapter F, Chapter 153, Texas Family Code n the
children's best interest. IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall
have limited access to and possession of the children as set forth in Attachment A.
7. Child Support
IT IS ORDERED that D D shall provide child support for the
children as set forth in Attachment B.
IT IS ORDERED that R S shall provide child support for the children as
set forth in Attachment B.
IT IS ORDERED that T H shall provide child support for the children as
set forth in Attachment B.
IT IS ORDERED that C S shall provide child support for the
children as set forth in Attachment B.
IT IS ORD.ERED that J T S shall provide child support for
the children as set forth in Attachment B.
8. Medical Support
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 7 of 20
IT IS ORDERED that D D shall provide for the medical support
of the children as set forth in Attachment C.
IT IS ORDERED that R S shall provide for the medical support of the
children as set forth in Attachment C.
IT IS ORDERED that T H shall provide for the medical support of the
children as set forth in Attachment C.
IT IS ORDERED that C S shall provide for the medical support
of the children as set forth in Attachment C.
IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall provide for the medical
support of the children as set forth in Attachment C.
9. Release of Medical and Mental Health Records
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent D , R S ,
T H , C S and J T S
. execute an authorization for the release of medical and mental health records to the
Department, and provide the Department with a list of the names and addresses of the
physicians and mental health providers who have treated the Respondents. Respondents
shall execute the authorization and deliver it, together with the list of physicians and mental
health providers, to the Department within 15 days of the date of this hearing.
Temporary Orders
Page? ASAP 11
10. Required Home Study/ Social Study
10.1. The Court finds that Respondent Father, D D , has/has not
submitted the Child Placement Resources Form required under § 261.307, Texas
Family Code.
10.2. The Court finds that Respondent Father, R S , has/has not
submitted the Child Placement Resources Form required under § 261.307, Texas
Family Code.
10.3. The Court finds that Respondent Father, T H , has/has not
submitted the Child Placement Resources Form required under § 261.307, Texas
Family Code.
10.4. The Court finds that Respondent Father, C S , has/has not
submitted the Child Placement Resources Form required under § 261.307, Texas
Family Code.
10.5. The Court finds that Respondent Mother, J T S ,
has/has not submitted the Child Placement Resources Form required under s:::
o
§ 261.307, Texas Family Code. +=0=
.~ Q)
10.6. IT IS ORDERED that each Parent, Alleged Father or Relative of the subject ~ en
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 8 of 20
.- 0
children before the Court complete the Child Placement Resources Form provided tc...
Q)Q)
under § 261.307, and file the completed Form with the Court if the form has not U '-
previously filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each Parent, Alleged Father +--t- O:::J
or Relative provide the Department with a copy of the completed Form and the ~ g
full name and current address or whereabouts and phone number of any absent "'C .~
parent, alleged father or relative of the subject children, pursuant to § 262.201, ~ ~
Texas Family Code. t 0
IU
'>
10.7. IT IS ORDERED that the Department shall conduct a home/social study ·on •
--::--:-:-_--:-_ _::-:-_ _----:-" if preliminary criminal and CPS background checks
of all members of the household age 14 and up are favorable.
11. Finding and Notice
The Court finds and hereby notifies the parents that each of the actions required of
them below are necessary to obtain the return of the children, and failure to fully
comply with these orders may result in the restriction or termination of parental
rights.
Temporary Orders
PageS ASAP 11
12. Psychological or Psychiatric Evaluation: D D
12.1. IT IS ORDERED that CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES is appointed to interview,
examine, evaluate, and consult with D D and to prepare a
psychological or psychiatric evaluation of D D to be filed
with the Court.
12.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that D D shall appear at a
date and time to be determined by contracted with the Texas Department of Family
and Protective Services, and shall submit to and cooperate fully in the preparation of
this court-ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Respondent is hereby
notified that any communications made with a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or
psychologist are not confidential.
13. Psychological or Psychiatric Evaluation: R S
13.1. IT IS ORDERED that CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES is appointed to interview,
examine, evaluate, and consult with R S and to prepare a
psychological or psychiatric evaluation of R S to be filed with the
Court.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 9 of 20
13.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that R S shall appear at a date and
time to be determined by contracted with the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, and shall submit to and cooperate fully in the preparation of this
court-ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Respondent is hereby
notified that any communications made with a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or
psychologist are not confidential.
14. Psychological or Psychiatric Evaluation: T H
14.1. IT IS ORDERED that CONTRACTED 'VITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FMIlLY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES is appointed to interview,
examine, evaluate, and consult with T H and to prepare a
psychological or psychiatric evaluation of T H to be filed with the
Court.
14.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that T H shall appear at a date and
time to be determined by contracted with the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, and shall submit to and cooperate fully in the preparation of this
court-ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Respondent is hereby
notified that any communications made with a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or
psychologist are not confidential.
Temporary Orders
Page 9 ASAP 11
15. Psychological or Psychiatric Evaluation: C S
15.1. IT IS ORDERED that CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES is appointed to interview,
examine, evaluate, and consult with C S d to prepare a
psychological or psychiatric evaluation of C S to be filed with
the Court.
15.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that C S shall appear at a date
and time to be detennined by contracted with the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, and shall submit to and cooperate fully in the preparation of this
court-ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Respondent is hereby
notified that any communications made with a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or
psychologist are not confidential.
16. Psychological or Psychiatric Evaluation: J T S
16.1. IT IS ORDERED that CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMIL Y AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES is appoin terview, s:::
examine, evaluate, and consult with J T S and to ~
p psychological or psychiatric evaluation of J T .§ \J
.S to be filed with the Court. :- g'
It.. c..
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 10 of 20
.
a)
16.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that J T S shall appear U ~
at a date and time to be detennined by contracted with the Texas Department of ~ ~
Family and Protective Services, and shall submit to and cooperate fully in the ~ g
preparation of this court-ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation. ~ .~
Respondent is hereby notified that any communications made with a counselor, ~ s::
therapist, psychiatrist, or psychologist are not confidential. 1: 0 a)
17. Counseling
..'->
17.1. IT IS ORDERED that D D shall attend and cooperate fully
in counseling sessions at CONTRACTED \VITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMIL Y AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES to address the specific issues that
led to the removal of the children from the home and to address any additional issues
arising from the psychological examinations or from the counseling sessions. Said
counseling sessions shall begin and shall continue un~il the counselor determines
that no further sessions are necessary or until further order of this Court.
17.2. IT IS ORDERED that R S shall attend and cooperate fully in
counseling sessions at CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMIL Y AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES to address the specific issues that
led to the removal of the children from the home and to address any additional issues
arising from the psychological examinations or from the counseling sessions. Said
counseling sessions shall begin and shall continue until the counselor determines
that no further sessions are necessary or until further order of this Court.
Temporary Orders
Page 10 ASAP 11
17.3. IT IS ORDERED that T H shall attend and cooperate fully in
counseling sessions at CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES to address the specific issues that
led to the removal of the children from the home and to address any additional issues
arising from the psychological examinations or from the counseling sessions. Said
counseling sessions shall begin and shall continue until the counselor determines
that no further sessions are necessary or until further order of this Court.
17.4. IT IS ORDERED that C S shall attend and cooperate fully in
counseling sessions at CONTRACTED WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES to address the specific issues that
led to the removal of the children from the home and to address any additional issues
arising· from the psychological examinations or from the counseling sessions. Said
counseling sessions shall begin no and shall continue until the counselor determines
that no further sessions are necessary or until further order of this Court.
17.5. IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall attend and
cooperate fully in counseling sessions at CONTRACTED \-VITH THE TEXAS
DEPARTlVIENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES to address the
specific issues that led to the removal of the children from the home and to address .E
any additional issues arising from the psychological examinations or from the ~ =
counseling sessions. Said counseling sessions shall begin and shall continue until ~ ~
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 11 of 20
the counselor determines that no further sessions are necessary or until further order t g.,.
```` ``
L.
O::::J
18. Parenting Classes -:;; 1:;
CJ s::
18.1. IT IS ORDERED that D D shall attend, participate in and ] .~
successfully complete parenting classes and shall submit to the Department or file ~ ~
with Court a certificate of completion. ~
\J
"
18.2. IT IS ORDERED that R S shall attend, participate in and
successfully complete parenting classes and shall submit to the Department or file
with Court a certificate of completion.
18.3. IT IS ORDERED that T H shall attend, participate in and
successfully complete parenting classes and shall submit to the Department or file
with Court a certificate of completion.
18.4. IT IS ORDERED that C S shall attend, participate in and
successfully complete parenting classes and shall submit to the Department or file
with Court a certificate of completion.
18.5. IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall attend, participate
in and successfully complete parenting classes and shall submit to the Department or
file with Court a certificate of completion.
Temporary Orders
Page 11 ASAP 11
19. Drug and Alcohol Assessments and Testing
19.1. IT IS ORDERED that D D shall appear and shall submit to
and cooperate fully in the preparation of the court-ordered drug and alcohol
dependency assessment.
19.2. IT IS ORDERED that·D D shall submit urine samples, at
times to be determined by the Department, for analysis by a drug testing laboratory.
The results of such tests will be reported to the Department and tpe Court and will be
considered in assessing D D 'S suitability for permanent
placement of the children.
19.3. IT IS ORDERED that R S shall appear and shall submit to and
cooperate fully in the preparation of the court-ordered drug and alcohol dependency
assessment.
19.4. IT IS ORDERED that R S shall submit urine samples, at times to
be determined by the Department, for analysis by a drug testing laboratory. The
results of such tests will be reported to the Department and the Court and will be
considered in assessing R S 'S suitability for permanent placement
of the children. s::::
o
+=
a=
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 12 of 20
19.5. IT IS ORDERED that T H shall appear and shall submit to and .~ Q)
'to- en
cooperate fully in the preparation of the court-ordered drug and alcohol dependency ' - c:::J
assessment.
t:c..
Q)
u Q)
oL.
19.6. IT IS ORDERED that T H shall submit urine samples, at times to +-:=J+-
W1 c:::J
be determined by the Department, for analysis by a drug testing laboratory. The as::::
results of such tests will be reported to the Department and the Court and will be "'C.2'l
Oltl)
considered in assessing T H 'S suitability for permanent placement of 'i:.
._ s::
the children. to
~
'->
r.
19.7. IT IS ORDERED that C S shall appear and shall submit to
and cooperate fully in the preparation of the court-ordered drug and alcohol
dependency assessment.
19.8. IT IS ORDERED that C S shall submit urine samples, at
times to be determined by the Department, for analysis by a drug testing laboratory.
The results of such tests will be reported to the Department and the Court and will be
considered in assessing C S 'S suitability for permanent
placement of the children.
19.9. IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall appear and shall
submit to and cooperate fully in the preparation of the court-ordered drug and
alcohol dependency assessment.
19.10. IT IS ORDERED that J T S shall submit urine
samples, at times to be determined by the Department, for analysis by a drug testing
Temporary Orders
Page 12 ASAP 11
laboratory. The results of such tests will be reported to the Departm he
Court and will be considered in assessing J T S 'S
suitability for permanent placement of the children.
20. Compliance with Service Plan
20.1. D D is ORDERED, pursuant to § 263.106 Texas Family
Code, to comply with each requirement set out in the Department's original, or any
amended, service plan during the pendency of this suit.
20.2. R S is ORDERED, pursu~t to § 263.106 Texas Family Code, to
c h each requirement set out in the Department's original, or any amended,
service plan during the pendency of this suit.
20.3. T H is ORDERED, pursuant to § 263.106 Texas Family Code, to
comply with each requirement set out in the Department's original, or any amended,
service plan during the pendency ofthis suit.
20.4. C S is ORDERED, pursuant to § 263.106 Texas Family
Code, to comply with each requirement set out in the Department's original, or any
amended, service plan during the pendency of this suit.
s::::
o
20.5. J T S is ORDERED, pursuant to § 263.106 Texas 1;-
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 13 of 20
Family Code, to comply with each requirement set out in the Department's original, .~-OJ
or any amended, service plan during the pendency of this suit. ~ ~
L Co.
&\)
20.6. The court finds that this order, as supplemented by the service plan to be ~ ~
approved at the Status Hearing under Texas Family Code §263.201, sufficiently +- ~
defines the rights and duties of the parents of the child pursuant to Texas Family ~ s::
Code § 153.602 and satisfies the requirements of a parenting plan. To the extent 11 .~
there is evidence demonstrating that the children have been exposed to harmful ~ c:
parental conflict, the court orders that the Department address this issue in the !i 0
Family Plan of Service. !-J
21. Required Information
21.1. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent to this cause provide to the Department and
the Court, no later than thirty days from the date of this hearing, the information
detailed below.
21.2. IT IS ORDERED that each Parent furnish information sufficient to accurately
identify that parent's net resources and ability to pay child support along with
copies of income tax returns for the past two years, any financial statements, bank
statements, and current pay stubs, pursuant to § 154.063, Texas Family Code.
21.3. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent provide the Department and the Court
information sufficient to establish the parentage and immigration status of the
children, including but not limited to marriage records, birth or death certificates,
Temporary Orders
Page 13 ASAP 11
baptismal records, social security cards, records of lawful permanent residence
("green cards"), naturalization certificates, and any records from the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and records of Indian Ancestry or Tribal
Membership.
21.4. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent furnish to the Department all
information necessary to ensure the Department has an adequate medical history
for the children, including but not limited to the immunization records for the
children and the names and addresses of all physicians who have treated the
children.
21.5. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent provide the Department information
regarding the medical history of the parent and parent's ancestors on the medical
history report form, pursuant to § 161.2021, Texas Family Code.
21.6. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent to this cause provide to the Department
and the Court a current residence address and telephone number at which each
can be contacted.
21.7. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent to this cause notify the Department and
the Court of any change in his or her residence address or telephone number
within five (5) days of a change of address or telephone number.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 14 of 20
21.8. IT IS ORDERED that each Respondent provide the Department information
regarding the medical history of the parent and parent's ancestors on the medical
history report form, pursuant to § 161.2021, Texas Family Code.
22. Duty To Provide Information
22.1. IT IS ORDERED pursuant to § 153.076(a), Texas Family Code that each
conservator of a child has a duty to inform the other conservator of the child in a
timely manner of significant information concerning the health, education, and
welfare of the child.
22.2. IT IS ORDERED pursuant to § 153.076(b), Texas Family Code, that each
conservator of the child has the duty to inform the other conservator if the
conservator resides with for at least 30 days, marries, or intends to marry a person
who the conservator knows:
22.2.1. is registered as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal
Procedure; or
22.2.2. is currently charged with an offense for which on conviction the person
would be required to register under that chapter.
22.3. The notice required to be made under § 153.076(b), Texas Family Code, must be
made as soon as practicable but not later than the 40th day after the date the
conservator of the child begins to reside with the person or the 10th day after the
Temporary Orders
Page 14 ASAP 11
date the marriage occurs, as appropriate. The notice must include a description of
the offense that is the basis of the 'person's requirement to register as a sex
offender or of the offense with which the person is charged.
22.4. A CONSERVATOR COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THE CONSERVATOR
FAILS TO PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTIONS (b) AND (c) OF § 153.076, Texas Family Code. AN
OFFENSE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION (d) IS A CLASS C
MISDEMEANOR
23. Notice of Status Hearing
IT IS ORDERED that this cause i .set for a St~us Hearing, yrsuant to § 263.201
Texas Family Code, on I. ~O '7 at : 2>
o'clock~.m.
in the East Texas CPS Cluster ourt of '1ontgomery County in Conroe, Texas.
24. All said TEMPORARY ORDERS shall continue in force during the pendency of this suit or
until further order of the C rt.
,)J.
SIGNED this 2:!- day of ,2013.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 15 of 20
t, B~rbara Gladde.n Adamick, do hereby
,Certlfydo. pages In Cause # '3-\:)'"1-``U.l~
, as. b.eing a true and correct copy of the -v
Onglnal Record now on file in the District
Clerk's Office of Montgomery County, Texas.
Witness My Official Seal of Office in Conroe Texas
On Th,is the ly.'-Day of C)..J..!;;)b~ ``
Stephame Hall By: ~-'
26. Possession of and Access to the children
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
may have supervised visitation with the children, under the tenns and conditions agreed
to in advance by the parties, subject to 48 hours notification to the Department by the
Temporary Orders
Page 1 ASAP 11
Temporary Possessory Conservator of intent to exercise the visitation. The Department or
its designee shall supervise the visitation.
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
shall have visitation with the children as follows:
27. Possession of and Access to the children
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
may have supervised visitation with the children, under the tenns and conditions agreed
to in advance by the parties, subject to 48 hours notification to the Department by the
Temporary Possessory Conservator of intent to exercise the visitation. The Department or
its designee shall supervise the visitation.
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
shall have visitation with the children as follows:
28. Possession of and Access to the children
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
may have supervised visitation with the children, under the tenns and conditions agreed
to in advance by the parties, subject to 48 hours notification to the Department by the
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 18 of 20
Temporary Possessory Conservator of intent to exercise the visitation. The Department or
its designee shall supervise the visitation.
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
shall have visitation with the children as follows:
s::
o
29. Possession of and Access to the children +=
~­
y-
._ a)
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order ~ ~
may have supervised visitation with the children, under the tenns and conditions agreed ~ c..
to in advance by the parties, subject to 48 hours notification to the Department by the U ~
Temporary Possessory Conservator of intent to exercise the visitation. The Department or ~ ~
its designee shall supervise the visitation. ~ g
-o.s:-
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order ~. ~
shall have visitation with the children as follows: taJ
0
\...)
II
30. Possession of and Access to the children
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
may have supervised visitation with the children, under the tenns and conditions agreed
to in advance by the parties, subject to 48 hours notification to the Department by the
Temporary Possessory Conservator of intent to exercise the visitation. The Department or
its designee shall supervise the visitation.
Temporary Orders
Page 2 ASAP 11
IT IS ORDERED that each Temporary Possessory Conservator appointed in this Order
shall have visitation with the children as follows:
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 19 of 20
Temporary Orders
Page 3 ASAP 11
ATTACHMENT B
Child Support
31. Place and Manner of Payment
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all child support payments are to be made through
the Office of the Attorney General, Texas Child Support State Distribution Unit, P.O.
Box 659791, San Antonio, Texas 78265-9791 and then remitted by that agency to the
Department of Family and Protective Services for the support of the children.
32. Order to Employer Entered
32.1. On this date an "Employer's Order "to Withhold from Earnings for Child Support"
was entered by the Court. However, each parent obligated and ordered to support a
child, subject of this suit, is responsible for and is ORDERED to make payment of
all child support until an employer complies with the "Employer's Order," or if an
employer fails to comply with that order at any time.
32.2. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court, upon request, to cause a certified copy
of the Employer's Order to Withhold Earnings for Child Support, with a copy of
Chapter 158, Texas Family Code attached, to be delivered to the Respondents'
employer(s) whether current or subsequent. The Court ORDERS the Respondents
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475375 - Page 20 of 20
to provide any subsequent employer(s) with a copy of the Employer's Order to
Withhold Earnings for Child Support filed herein.
Temporary Orders
Page 1 ASAP 11
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this June 18, 2015
Certified Document Number: 59475375 Total Pages: 20
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
Tab 3
Supplemental Order to Appear and Warnings
(signed July 30, 2013 – image #59475376)
IN THE INTEREST OF
D
L
L
S
D
S
20
& H S § OF
MINOR CHILD(REN) § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO APPEAR AND WARNINGS
IT IS ORDERED that the following parties and attorneys be present at all future hearings as
listed in the Future Hearings Schedule below:
Respondent Mother: ~'J'13th
Respondent Mother's Attorney:
Respondent Father:
Respondent Father's Attorney:
Respondent Father: R S
T H
C S
Respondent Father's Attorney:
Attorney Ad Litem: S H
FUTURE HEARINGS SCHEDULE:
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475376 - Page 1 of 1
Status Hearing: at 8:30 am
Initial Permanency Hearing: at 8:30 am
Permanency Hearing: at 8:30 am
Final Trial: at 1:30 pm
Deputy
WARNINGS:
If you fail to appear at one of the above hearings, the subsequent hearing dates are subject
to change.
Failure to attend future hearings without good cause shown may result in a finding that the
parents have waived legal rights and are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the
Department's petition. CJ
LU
Failure to participate in the Family Plan of Service may result in termination of parental Z
rights or establishment of permanent conservatorship with someone other than the parent.
Z
Failure to attend future hearings may result in the termination of parental rights. ~
If you fail to appear at one of the above hearings, the subsequent hearing dates are subject
to change. ' .-
u
U)
I, Barbara: Gla8~1imQ~' 36 ,2013
Certify-L pages in Cause-il t``~ y
as being' a true and correct copy th it
Original Record now on file in the District
Clerk's Office of Montgomery County, Texas.
Witness My Offid~1 Seal of Office in· Co~roe: Texas
On This the ~ay of Wc~ J,¢o\3
By: ``DeputY
..........
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this June 18, 2015
Certified Document Number: 59475376 Total Pages: 1
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
Tab 4
Status Hearing Order
(signed September 11, 2013 – image #59475405)
20130577sJ
CAUSE NO. 13·07·07616 CV
IN THE INTEREST OF §
§
D L ._:u _~,
L S ti ~ :Ii :Jji
J S pf,``T3~?!~ §
H S OCT 1 B 2013~
Time:,_........_,....
CHILDREN Rarrrreou;rty;'f8i;§;--- MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
By.______``~----_
STAT't1~ARING ORDER
On September 11, 2013, a Status Hearing was held pursuant to Subchapter C, Chapter 263,
Texas Family Code,
1. Appearances
1.1. The Department of Family and Protective Services ("the Department") appeared
through SHAUNTA HOLMES, caseworker, and by attorney, JOHN_
LOCKWOOD/SARAH ST ALLBERG/DEBBIE GARCIA and announced
ready. ~
~
c:J-
1.2. Respondent Alleged Father D D , father of D .~-~
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 1 of 7
L D ~ g'
o appeared in person and announced ready. ~ ~
u
o appeared through attorney of record and 0 5
annolmced ready. -: ~
o appeared in person and through attorney of record c:J §,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready. ~ .V)
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed. ~ g
o agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below. ~
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default. !->
o was not notified, and did not appear.
1.3. Respondent Alleged _ Father R S , father of L
S
o appeared in person and announced ready. c
o appeared through attorney of record and UJ
announced ready.
o appeared in person and through attorney of record Z
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready. Z
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed. ~
o agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default. uV')
o was not notified, and did not appear.
Status Hearing Order 13.()7-()7616 CV 13
Page 1 ASAP 2013
,.
"
1.4. Respondent Alleged Father T H , father of J
S
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
announced ready.
o appeared in person and through attorney of record
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed.
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
o was not notified, and did not appear.
1.5. R Alleged Father C S , father of H
S
o appeared in person and announced ready.
o appeared through attorney of record and
announc;ed ready.
o appeared in person and through attorney of record
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and announced ready.
o waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed.
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default.
o was not notified, and did not appear.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 2 of 7
s::
o
1.6. Respondent Mother J T S +=
o
appeared in person and announced ready.)t1>frrl1 '1), I;:,a.,t't/ c:J~
__
c.J~Co\)
o
appeared through attorney of record WILLIAIVI HAlUUSON and announced ~ ~
,ready. ADf}{J1 D j ETe-(et/- . L c..
``peared in person and through attorney of record WILLIAM IIkRRISON
f'rrr' ~ ~
~d announced ready. ~
.:;?
owaived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed. ~ g
oagreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by signature below. ~ .~
(\)V)
oalthough duly and properly notified, did not appear and wholly made default. ~ c:
o was not notified, and did not appear. t:
~
0
u
1.7. STEPHANIE HALL, appointed by the Court as Attorney Ad Litem of the ..
f
c ildren the subject of this suit,
appeared and announced ready.
agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified, did not appear.
1.8. CASAIMONTGOMERY COUNTY, appointed by the Court as Guardian Ad
,Li!Yrli of the children the subject of this suit,
~ appeared and announced ready.
o agreed to the tenns of this order as evidenced by signature below.
o although duly and properly notified. did not appear.
Status Hearing Order 13-07-07616 CV 13
Page 2 ASAP 2013
..,
1.9. Also Appearing_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2. Findings
2.1. The Court, having reviewed the pleadings, and considered all evidence and
infonnation required by law, including all service plans and court reports filed by the
Department, finds that all necessary prerequisites of the law have been satisfied, and
that this Court has jurisdiction over this cause.
2.2. The Court finds that all parties entitled to citation and notice have been served,
except as specifically set out below.
2.3. The Court finds that D D , although entitled to notice of
this hearing, was not served. The Court finds that the Department has exercised
due diligence to locate this respondent.
2.4. The Court finds that R S , although entitled to notice of this
hearing, was not served. The Court finds that the Department has exercised due
diligence to locate this respondent.
2.5. The Court finds that T H , although entitled to notice of this
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 3 of 7
hearing, was not served. The Court finds that the Department has exercised due s::
o
diligence to locate this respondent. +:
~=
o~ Co\)
2.6. The Court finds that C S , although entitled to notice of this ~
0-
01
~
hearing, was not served. The Court finds that the Department has exercised due "tc..
Co\) 1.\)'
diligence to locate this respondent. U E..
O::::J
+-+-
2.7. The Court finds that J T S , although entitled to ., c::s
~ s::
notice of this hearing, was not served. The Court finds that the Department has ~o~
Co\)VJ
exercised due diligence to locate this respondent. 't:.s::
+-
L.
0
2.8. The Court, having reviewed the report filed under § 263.007, finds that the ~
Department's efforts havelhave not been sufficient to identify, locate, and •
provide infonnation to each adult described in § 262.1095(a).
2.9. If the Court finds that efforts have not been sufficient, then IT IS ORDERED
that the Department make further efforts to identify, locate, and provide
infonnation to each adult described in § 262.1095(a).
2.10. The Court, having reviewed the service plans filed by the Department, finds,
except as specifically noted below, that the service plans are reasonable, accurate,
and in compliance with the previous orders of the Court.
2.11. The Court finds the plans are reasonably tailored to address any specific issues
identified by the Department.
Status Hearing Order 13·07-()7616 CV 13
Page 3 ASAP 2013
2.12. The Court finds that the children's parents and a representative of the Department
haslhas not signed the plans.
2.13. The Court finds that D D ~t reviewed the service
plans.
2.14. The Court finds that D D h~ signed the plan..
2.15. The Court finds that R S ~eviewed the service plans.
2.16. The Court finds that R S T.JttlS@t signed the plan.
2.17. The Court fmds that T H lnls"~eviewed the service plans.
2.18. The Court finds that T H ~ signed the plan.
2.19. The Court finds that C S ~ reviewed the service
plans.
2.20. The Court finds that C S ~ signed the plan.
2.21. The Court fmds that J T S 8S.llot reviewed the
service plans.
S as..n.ot signed the
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 4 of 7
2.22. The Court finds that J T
plan.
2.23. The Court finds that Respondent Father, D D , has/has
not completed the Child Placement Resources Form and filed it with the Court as
required under § 261.307, Texas Family Code. If the previously
been submitted, IT IS ORDERED that D D submit the
Child Placement Resources Form to the Department.
2.24. The Court finds that Respondent Father, R S , bas/has not
completed the Child Placement Resources Form and filed it with the Court as
required under § 261.307, Texas Family C the has not previously
been submitted, IT IS ORDERED that R S submit the Child
Placement Resources Form to the Department.
2.25. The Court finds that Respondent Father, T H , bas/has not
completed the Child Placement Resources Form and filed it with the Court as
required under § 261.307, Texas Family Code. If the form has not previously
been submitted, IT IS ORDERED that T H submit the Child
Placement Resources Form to the Department.
2.26. The Court finds that Respondent Father, C S , bas/has not
completed the Child Placement Resources Form and filed it with the Court as
required under § 261.307, Texas Family Code. If the form has not previously
Status Hearing Order 13"()7"()7616 CV 13
Page 4 ASAP 2013
"'
been submitted, IT IS ORDERED that C S submit the
Child Placement Resources Form to the Department.
2.27. The Court finds that Respondent Mother, J T S ,
haslhas not completed the Child Placement Resources Form and filed it with the
Court as required under § 261.307, Texas Family Code. If the form has not
p been submitted, IT IS ORDERED that J T
S submit the Child Placement Resources Form to the Department.
2.28. The Court has reviewed the summary of the medical care provided to the subject
children under § 266.007, Texas Family Code.
2.29. The Court has also reviewed the Visitation Plan provided by the Department
pursuant to § 263.109, Texas Family Code
3. Visitation Plan: D D
3.1. T fin ion between D D and
D D must be supervised to protect the health and safety
of D D
4. Visitation Plan: R S
s::
4.1. The Court finds that visitation between L S and R o
:t=
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 5 of 7
S must be supervised to protect the health and safety of L c:::s-
U-
-- Q)
S . '+- 01
.- 0
t:c..
Co\) Q)
5. Visitation Plan: T H Us:..
o :::J
+-+-
5.1. The Court finds that visitation between J S and T .,,0
o s:::
H must be supervised to protect the health and safety of J -o.~
Co\)~
S .
it:.s:::
+=0
"-
6. Visitation Plan: C S Co\)
..U
6.1. The Court f visitation between H S and
C S must be supervised to protect the health and safety of
H S .
7. Visitation Plan: J T S
7.1. The Court finds ation between D L D
L S , J S AND H
S and J T S se
th an D L D
S , J S AND H S .
Status Hearing Order 13"()7-07616 CV 13
Page 5 ASAP 2013
8. Orders
8.1. IT IS ORDERED that, except as specifically modified by this order or any
subsequent order, the plan of service for the parents, filed with the Court on
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ or attached to this order and incorporated herein by
reference as if the same were copied verbatim in this order, is APPROVED and
made an ORDER of this Court.
8.2. IT IS ORDERED that the plan of service issued by this Court shall continue in
full force and effect subject to the following modifications:
8.3. The Court advises the parents that progress under the service plan will be reviewed
at all subsequent hearings, including a review of whether the parties have acquired
or learned any specific skills or knowledge stated in the service plan.
8.4. IT IS ORDERED that, in addition to the rights and duties listed in § 153.371,
Texas Family Code, the Department is authorized to consent to medical care for
the subject children, pursuant to § 266.004, Texas Family Code.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 6 of 7
8.5. IT IS ORDERED that all previous orders issued by this Court shall continue in
full force and effect subject to the following modifications:
9. Notice of Permanency Hearing
IT IS ORDERED that the initial Permanency Hearing in this cause is hereby set for
December 10, 2013 at 8:30 a.m., in the East Texas CPs Cluster Court of
Montgomery County, Texas.
~IGNFD this . tfa;bf l --/ 5
, ffarbara. 'GlaCfCJeifA(famick . do hereby
,2013.
Certifyl pages in Cause # \3-li)-\'r\la..~Le.-c:...v
as. b.eing a true and correct copy of the
Ongmal Record now on file in the District
Clerk's Office of Montgomery County, Texas.
Witness My Official Seal of Office in Conroe, Texas
On This the ~ay of C);4 ~-r 2.0 \3
. . )
By: ~n~ ,Deputy
Status Hearing Order 13·07-07616 CV 13
Page 6 ASAP 2013
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tallberglDebbie Garcia
Attorney for Petitioner, Department of Family and Protective Services
207 W. Phillips, First Floorffexas Department of Family and Protective Services
Conroe, TX 77301
phone: (936) 539-7828
fax: (936) 760-6920
SI'hi· 44
=~
ASA/Montgomery County
Guardian Ad Litem for the Children
D D
Alleged Father of the Children D L D
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475405 - Page 7 of 7
R S
Alleged Father of the Child L S
T H
Alleged Father of the Child J S
C S
Alleged Father of the Child H S
Attorney for the Mother J T S
Status Hearing Order 13-07·07616 CV 13
Page 7 ASAP 2013
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this June 18, 2015
Certified Document Number: 59475405 Total Pages: 7
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
Tab 5
Order on Motion to Transfer
(signed October 7, 2013 – image #59475363)
." .
'
IN THE INTEREST OF
D L
L S
J S
H S
CHILDREN
ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER
On this date, the Court finds that the Motion 10 Transfer filed by The Texas Department
of Family & Protective Services should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Cause No. 13-07-07616 CV, In the Interest of
D L D L S ,J S and H S ; in
the 418th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas is transferred to Harris County.
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475363 - Page 1 of 3
The Montgo~ery County, District Clerk is ORDERED to transfer the file, along with a copy of
all pleadings, orders, and other documents filed. The District Clerk of Harris County is
ORDERED to docket the case along with the documents fileJ%Montgomery County, Trr:as ..
/0- 7~/3 lf1"::)0`` o.-k...\, .
SIGNED on the
-
day of
,
2013
.
"At.,vrtr
~
- O~rc9 M.. '-t...k.(Y\S
d,l~V\n.``4 _
ax-e.
AGREED:
``~
partment of Family & Protective Services
11, AAL for the children
For Official Governmental Use Only - Do Not Disseminate to the Public: 59475363 - Page 2 of 3
I, Barbara Gladden Adamick, do hereby
Certify...L':1.
SIGNED this _ _ day otNOV 1 1 2014 ,2014.
MASTER OF THE COURT
NOV 1 1 2014
SIGNED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2014.
JUDGE fRESIDING
Permanency Hearing Order 2013-05778J / 313th
Page 5 September 12,2014 (zenab)
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this June 18, 2015
Certified Document Number: 63354474 Total Pages: 5
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com