In the Interest of K.R. and G.R., Children v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00373-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.R. AND G.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Moore County, Texas
Trial Court No. CL67-20, Honorable Jerod Pingelton, Presiding
February 28, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, K.M.R. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s final order of October 6,
2023, that terminates his parental rights to his children, K.R. and G.R.1 The court based
its decision on the authority of statutory predicate ground (N) (constructive abandonment)
and the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest.2 Appellee is the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services. Through a single issue, Father challenges
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that termination of the
1 To protect the privacy of the children, we refer to Appellant as “Father,” the children by initials,
and the children’s mother as “Mother.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8 (a),(b).
2 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (2).
parent-child relationship is in the children’s best interest. Concluding that sufficient
evidence supports the challenged finding, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Background
K.R. and G.R. were removed from Mother3 in May 2020 and placed in Department
foster care in the Amarillo area, where they remained at the time of the final hearing.
Mother’s parental rights were terminated by order signed November 29, 2021. Father’s
rights were not terminated at that time; he was named a possessory conservator with an
expectation of establishing a relationship with the children and working toward
reunification. To do so, Father was required to undertake several responsibilities. The
Department subsequently moved to terminate Father’s rights, alleging there had been a
material and substantial change of circumstances since November 2021.
At the final hearing, permanency specialist and caseworker Michele Slagle pointed
to a plan of services and communication requirements that Father had to fulfill before
reunification would be possible. These included Father’s attendance and participation in
face-to-face therapy sessions to assist establishing a bond with the children. Father
attended only a single session. During that session, K.R. challenged Father’s reasons
for seeking reunification, asking, “Why do you want to be a part of our life when you
weren’t before?” Father offered as an excuse owning a 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe and a
1995 Dodge Ram pickup for why he was incapable of traveling from his home in
Weatherford, Texas, to Amarillo to participate in the other sessions.
3 Father testified that he and Mother were not married.
2
Evidence shows Father has only had two other in-person visits with the children
since November 2021. One was at a restaurant located in Wichita Falls (after a volunteer
drove the children to the meeting location), and the other visit was in Amarillo at a “game
place where the trampoline and the movie theater and the arcade are all close together.”
Father initially explained that feeling intimidated by Mother’s family kept him away, but
ultimately conceded, “I didn’t come like I should have. More my fault than intimidation.”
Regarding electronic communications, Father estimated he missed about one-
fourth of allowable telephone calls with the children; he reasoned he thought they either
needed a break or that the foster parents were “out of pocket.” According to Department
records, Father actually missed 37 of 60 possible phone calls. And during the calls he
did participate in, Father apparently only spoke with G.R.
Father testified he did not want his parental rights relinquished because he desires
his children to know him personally. But when asked what he had done to foster a
relationship with the children since 2020, Father admitted, “[p]robably not much.” He
testified that since the children’s removal, he had not sent them gifts for birthdays or
Christmas. According to Slagle, “the [children] are very frightened to be around” Father
and have not bonded with him. Slagle testified that the children have expressed a desire
to be adopted by their foster parents. Father acknowledged the foster parents’ desire to
adopt K.R. and G.R. and that the children are happy and well cared for in the foster home.
When asked for a reason why the court should not immediately terminate his parental
rights Father responded:
None. They’re happy where they are. [The foster parents] are great
parents. I just would like to stay involved somehow, get caught up on my
3
child support, and build a bond with [the foster parents] and the [children] to
where they know they don’t have to pick and choose. They got several
people that love them. It’s all about them.
Father testified he is a self-employed painter. He reported an annual income of
$16,000 for 2022, an amount he attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Father estimated
a similar income for 2023.4 Father explained he was eligible for assistance with bills for
food and medical care. He recently received food stamps of $290 to last 90 days. Father
estimated that with receiving housing assistance his monthly expenses were about
$1,800. Father testified he moved from a mobile home into a two-bedroom house so
that the children could “visit” over a weekend.5 He was apparently able to make this
housing change through an assistance program that covers his rent while he pays for
utilities. Father acknowledged owing approximately $2,000 in court-ordered child
support; he attributes the arrearage to a financial and medical hardship. He has never
investigated obtaining health insurance for the children because he “never anticipated
reunification.”
4 Father acknowledged his income can be erratic, but explained his choice of employment over a
wage job in the following manner:
[W]ith my work, it just goes up and down like that, but if you go get a punch clock job, right
when you do, one of the paint jobs calls in and you can make in two weeks what it takes
you two months at that punch clock job, so you’re better just to pray and not give up so
quick.
5 He answered a question about his motivation for the two-bedroom home this way:
Q. And you primarily got the two bedrooms so your [children] could visit?
A. Visit, exactly. Once a bond was established and [the foster parents], everybody felt, you
know -- just say, “Hey, can – y’all want to come for a weekend and just kind of spend it
together?” And [the foster parents] are there. A big enough house where everybody could
just have a barbecue like at -- if we have one at their house.
4
Father acknowledged receiving and completing a two-year probated sentence
following a 2015 conviction for driving while intoxicated, as well as a recent arrest for DWI
after consuming a half liter of vodka. According to a police report, the current DWI charge
stemmed from a traffic stop for speeding. However, the officer found Father clothed only
in a pair of shorts, worn backward. The officer noted “a superficial abrasion” on Father’s
forehead. Father told the officer the head wound came from hitting his head against a
wall out of “anger and depression.” Father testified of the upcoming DWI hearing and
expected his driver’s license to be suspended. Before his DWI arrest, he had been
successfully discharged from a 35-day alcohol rehab program in Houston. However,
Father was unable to answer why he did not attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings other
than when he was in rehab.
Analysis
Father does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the acts or
omissions enumerated under section 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code that can
serve as a basis for terminating parental rights. Father instead argues the evidence is
insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of his rights was in the best
interest of K.R. and G.R. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2). The applicable
standards for reviewing the evidence of the child’s best interest are discussed in our
opinion in In re I.O., 645 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, no pet.), and need
no further elaboration here. The trial court, as factfinder, was the sole judge of the weight
and credibility of the evidence and was entitled to believe all, some, or none of a witness’s
testimony. In re A.M., No. 07-21-00052-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5447, at *11 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo July 8, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
5
Although neither child testified at final hearing, the admitted evidence is undisputed
that both children desire to be adopted by their foster parents. While Father showed
nominal interest in maintaining a relationship with his children, his plan for building a daily
life together remains amorphous and demonstrates a lack of initiative. The Department
provided Father with opportunities to work toward reunification. However, the evidence
was more than sufficient to lead a rational factfinder to find that Father prefers to stay in
his current situation, passively hoping to cultivate a relationship with his children based
on approval of the foster parents. Such an arrangement—where the children spend only
a small amount of time with Father until he decides he is ready for a full-time role—would
force the children to persist in an environment of uncertainty of foster care with no
possibility of adoption.
In addition, the evidence militates against Father’s ability to provide a safe, stable,
and permanent environment for the children. This includes testimony regarding his
unreliable employment, struggles with alcohol abuse, and a pending criminal charge,
ambiguous statements about his future plans, and his inability to explain why the physical
distance between Weatherford and Amarillo poses such an insurmountable barrier to
fulfilling his parental responsibilities. When we look at “best interest,” our focus is on the
interests of the child, not the parent. In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d 571, 585 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2020, pet. denied). Here, the children are succeeding in foster care with the prospect of
adoption following termination. Father’s satisfaction with the status quo may be his
preference, but it is not the preference of his children.
We conclude that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s
best interest finding. We overrule Father’s sole issue on appeal.
6
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
7