D.M.K. and S.M. v. Department of Family and Protective Services and J.S. and B.S. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Reversed and Rendered in Part, Affirmed in Part and Memorandum Opinion
    filed October 10, 2024.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-24-00276-CV
    D.M.K. AND S.M., Appellants
    V.
    DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND J.S.
    AND B.S., Appellees
    On Appeal from the 315th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2020-01130J
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This accelerated appeal arises from a final order in which, after a final
    hearing tried to the bench, the trial court terminated the parental rights of appellant
    D.M.K. (Mother) with respect to her son, Sam, 1 and appointed intervenors J.S. and
    B.S. (Foster Parents) to be Sam’s sole managing conservators. See Tex. Fam. Code
    1
    To protect the minor’s identity, we do not use the actual names of the child, parents, or
    other family members. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
    Ann. § 109.002(a-1) (accelerated appeals in parental-termination cases); Tex. R.
    App. P. 28.4 (same). 2
    In three issues, Mother argues: (1) the trial court “abused its discretion by
    remaining in trial for 2 years, 8 months, and 13 days”; (2) the evidence was legally
    and     factually   insufficient    to   support     termination     under    Family     Code
    section 161.001(b)(1)(E); and (3) the trial court erred by naming Foster Parents as
    the sole managing conservators instead of S.M.—Sam’s maternal grandmother
    (Grandmother). Mother does not challenge termination of her parental rights
    pursuant to subsection (N) and (O),
    In two issues, Grandmother—who filed a separate notice of appeal from
    Mother—argues that (1) the trial court erred by naming Foster Parents as the sole
    managing conservators instead of Grandmother; and (2) Foster Parents failed to
    provide disclosures in the proceedings below.
    The State agrees with Mother that the evidence does not support terminating
    her parental rights under subsection (E), therefore we reverse the order of the trial
    court in part, and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered, striking
    the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support termination under
    subsection (E). We affirm the remainder of the order as challenged on appeal.
    I.      BACKGROUND
    In July 2020, appellee Department of Family and Protective Services (the
    Department) filed its first amended petition, requesting the termination of Mother’s
    and Father’s parental rights as to Sam, who was approximately two years old at the
    time.
    2
    The trial court also terminated the parental rights of Sam’s father, J.T.M (Father). He
    filed an acknowledgment of paternity, but he has not appealed the termination of his parental
    rights.
    2
    A bench trial commenced on July 14, 2021. In August 2021, Grandmother
    filed a motion to intervene, requesting sole managing conservatorship or,
    alternatively, possessory conservatorship or grandparent access to Sam. The trial
    court granted Grandmother’s motion to intervene. Over the next two years, Sam
    was placed with an initial foster family, then Foster Parents, and then a third foster
    family. On April 12, 2023, the trial court ordered that Sam be placed with
    Grandmother and that Grandmother not permit Mother to contact Sam. Several
    days later, Foster Parents filed a motion to intervene, seeking to adopt Sam; the
    trial court granted their motion to intervene.
    On March 27, 2024, the trial court signed its final order of termination,
    making the predicate findings to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Sam
    pursuant to subsections (E), (N), and (O), and finding that termination of Mother’s
    parental rights was in Sam’s best interest. See 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§161.001
    (b)(1)(E), (N), and (O). The trial court appointed Foster Parents as
    Sam’s sole managing conservators and ordered that Grandmother have
    “Grandparent Access” with Sam. Mother and Grandmother filed timely notices of
    appeal.
    II.    ANALYSIS
    A.    Length of the trial
    In her first issue, Mother argues that the trial court “lost subject matter
    jurisdiction by remaining in trial for two years, eight months, and 13 days contrary
    to the intent of Texas Family Code Section 263.401.” In termination cases, a trial
    must commence by the first Monday following the one-year anniversary of the
    court first awarding the Department conservatorship of the child:
    Unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits or granted an
    extension under Subsection (b) or (b-1), on the first Monday after the
    3
    first anniversary of the date the court rendered a temporary order
    appointing the department as temporary managing conservator, the
    court’s jurisdiction over the suit affecting the parent-child relationship
    filed by the department that requests termination of the parent-child
    relationship or requests that the department be named conservator of
    the child is terminated and the suit is automatically dismissed without
    a court order. Not later than the 60th day before the day the suit is
    automatically dismissed, the court shall notify all parties to the suit of
    the automatic dismissal date.
    
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401
    (a). A trial court’s failure to timely commence the
    suit results in the trial court losing subject-matter jurisdiction, unless the court
    grants a timely extension. 
    Id.
     § 263.401(b). Thus, section 263.401 only requires
    that trial on the merits begin by a certain date; it imposes no specific deadline by
    which a final order must be rendered.3
    Mother admits that the trial court timely commenced trial in accordance with
    § 263.401, but she complains that the length of the trial below violated the intent of
    the statute. However, the plain language of the statute places no limit on the length
    of trial, just as long as it commences in a timely fashion. Id. Additionally, we note
    that Mother never complained below about the length of the trial or otherwise
    request that the proceedings be expedited. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)
    (preservation of appellate complaints).
    We overrule Mother’s first issue.
    3
    In 2021, the legislature enacted section 263.4011, which provides that “the court shall
    render a final order not later than the 90th day after the date the trial commences.” 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.4011
    . However, its effective date was September 1, 2021, and it only applies to
    suits filed by the Department “on or after the effective date.” Act of Apr. 28, 2021, 87th Leg.,
    R.S., ch. 8, §§ 10, 15, 16, 
    2021 Tex. Gen. Laws 10
    , 15, 18. Because the Department filed its suit
    in the present case in 2020, section 263.4011 is not applicable to the present case, and thus there
    was no applicable requirement at the time to render a final order within 90 days of commencing
    trial.
    4
    B.     Predicate termination grounds
    In her second issue, Mother argues that the evidence was legally- and
    factually-insufficient to support termination under subsection (E) of section
    161.001(b)(1). 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001
    (b)(1)(E). Mother does not,
    however, challenge her termination under (N) and (O), but the Department agrees
    with Mother that termination under subsection (E) was improper. 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001
    (b)(1)(N), (O), (E).
    Accordingly, we sustain Mother’s second issue.
    C.     Conservatorship determination
    In her third issue, Mother challenges the trial court’s conservatorship
    determination. However, as noted above, Mother did not challenge every ground
    supporting the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. “[A]n order
    terminating the parent-child relationship divests the parent and the child of all legal
    rights and duties with respect to each other, except that the child retains the right to
    inherit from and through the parent unless the court otherwise provides.” 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206
    (b). Therefore, Mother has no legal interest in Sam and
    lacks standing to challenge the conservatorship determination. See In re H.M.M.,
    
    230 S.W.3d 204
    , 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (concluding
    that parent lacked standing on appeal to challenge the trial court’s conservatorship
    determination of child because parent did not contest termination of her parental
    rights).
    We overrule Mother’s third issue.
    D.     Participation of foster parents in the termination proceedings
    In Grandmother’s first issue on appeal, she argues the trial court abused its
    discretion by allowing Foster Parents to participate in the termination proceedings
    5
    because: (1) no petition for intervention was filed following the granting of the
    approval of the motion for leave to file petition; (2) counsel for Foster Parents
    waived participation in the termination portion of the trial; (3) Foster Parents failed
    to file timely disclosures; and (4) Foster Parents had no request for affirmative
    relief on file.
    Regarding Grandmother’s first contention, the record clearly demonstrates
    that Foster Parents filed a petition for intervention, followed by a motion for leave
    to file petition several days later. Nevertheless, Grandmother implies that Foster
    Parents were required to re-file their petition for intervention after the trial court
    granted their motion for leave to file a petition. 4 Grandmother cites no law to
    support this proposition. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (appellant’s brief must contain
    appropriate citations to authorities). Therefore, we find Grandmother’s argument to
    be without merit.
    Concerning her second contention, it is true that counsel for Foster Parents
    stated in their original appearance that “we’re not going to participate in the
    termination part because we’re here for the adoption proceedings; so I would just
    waive our participation for the termination portion.” However, once Foster Parents
    began asking questions and participating at trial, no objections were made by any
    party. Because this issue was never brought to the trial court’s attention, it has not
    been preserved for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
    In her third challenge to the Foster Parents’ participation at trial,
    Grandmother asserts that the Foster Parents failed to file timely disclosures.
    However, none of the exhibits offered—nor the witnesses called—by Foster
    4
    Additionally, we note that Grandmother did the same thing as the Foster Parents: she
    filed her original petition for intervention before the trial court had actually granted her motion
    for leave to file a petition.
    6
    Parents were objected to on the basis of lack of disclosure. Because Grandmother
    never brought this complaint to the trial court’s attention, this issue has not been
    preserved for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
    In Grandmother’s fourth contention, she claims that Foster Parents did not
    file for affirmative relief. However, Foster Parents’ petition for intervention
    specifically requested that they be appointed as sole managing conservators. The
    record does not support Grandmother’s argument.
    Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    allowing Foster Parents to participate in the proceedings below. We overrule
    Grandmother’s first issue.
    E.    The trial court’s conservatorship determination
    In Grandmother’s second issue, she argues that the trial court abused its
    discretion in naming Foster Parents as the sole managing conservators of Sam
    More specifically, Grandmother contends that it was in Sam’s best interest to be
    placed with her, a preferential relative, over a nonrelative foster family.
    1.     Standard of review and applicable law
    “The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of
    the court in determining the issues of conservatorship[.]” 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002
    . However, termination of parental rights and appointment of a nonparent
    as sole managing conservator are two distinct issues, differing in elements,
    standards of proof, and standards of review. Compare Tex. Fam. Code. Ann.
    § 161.001 with 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.131
    (a); see also In re J.A.J., 
    243 S.W.3d 611
    , 615–17 (Tex. 2007).
    Unlike the clear-and-convincing standard necessary to support termination
    of parental rights, the facts necessary to appoint a nonparent as sole managing
    7
    conservator need only be established by a mere preponderance of the evidence. See
    
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.005
    ; J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d at 616. Likewise, the standard
    of review for the appointment of a nonparent as sole managing conservator is only
    for an abuse of discretion, which is less stringent than the standard of review for
    termination of parental rights. J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d at 616. Therefore, the trial
    court’s appointment of a nonparent as sole managing conservator is reversed only
    if we determine the appointment is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.
    In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion,
    we apply a hybrid abuse-of-discretion analysis to determine whether
    the trial court (1) had sufficient information on which to exercise its
    discretion, and (2) erred in its application of discretion. Thus, legal
    and factual insufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal, but
    instead are factors to be considered in determining whether the trial
    court abused its discretion.
    In re C.A.M.M., 
    243 S.W.3d 211
    , 220 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
    denied) (internal citations omitted).
    To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we review the entire
    record, considering evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact-finder
    could, and disregarding evidence contrary to the finding unless a reasonable
    fact-finder could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 
    168 S.W.3d 802
    , 828 (Tex. 2005).
    The evidence is factually insufficient if the finding is so contrary to the
    overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.
    See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 
    116 S.W.3d 757
    , 773 (Tex. 2003).
    Finally, after assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine
    whether, based on the elicited evidence, the trial court made a reasonable decision.
    C.A.M.M., 243 S.W.3d at 221.
    8
    2.     Application
    Grandmother asserts that the trial court erred by placing Sam with Foster
    Parents because it was in Sam’s best interest to be placed with her, “an available
    preferential relative.” It is true that relatives are generally preferred over
    nonrelatives as potential placement options, but that preference is not absolute:
    [i]f the court does not order possession of a child by a parent,
    managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or
    custodian . . . the court shall place the child with a relative of the child
    unless the court finds that the placement with a relative is not in the
    best interest of the child.
    
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201
     (emphasis added). In this case, the trial court
    specifically determined that it was in the best interests of Sam to appoint Foster
    Parents, not Grandmother, as the sole managing conservators.
    In determining the best interest of a child, a court may consider, among other
    things: (1) the child’s desires; (2) the child’s emotional and physical needs now
    and in the future; (3) any emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the
    future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking primary possession; (5)
    the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the child’s best
    interest; (6) the plans for the child by those seeking primary possession; (7) the
    stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent
    which may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one;
    and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Holley v. Adams, 
    544 S.W.2d 367
    , 371–72 (Tex. 1976).
    Evidence in support of trial court’s determination
    When Grandmother was being initially investigated as a potential placement
    option for Sam, Grandmother contacted the Department to inform them that she
    could not take care of Sam due to health issues. Thus, there were concerns about
    9
    her ability to provide long-term care for Sam given Grandmother’s deteriorating
    health.
    The Department was also concerned because Grandmother admitted that if
    she were granted custody of Sam, she wanted Mother to help her take care of Sam,
    despite Sam being removed from Mother’s care in the first place because Mother
    and her boyfriend repeatedly exposed Sam to drug abuse, physical violence, and
    domestic abuse. Similarly, Grandmother gave Sam to Mother’s boyfriend during
    the investigation phase despite the allegations of domestic violence and substance
    abuse by the boyfriend, and thus there were concerns that giving Grandmother sole
    managing conservatorship would expose Sam to more domestic violence and
    abuse.
    There was also evidence that offered points of contrast between
    Grandmother’s and Foster Parents’ home environments. Mother alleged that
    Grandmother was abusive and overused prescriptions pills and alcohol, although
    she later recanted those allegations. Meanwhile, the Department had no concerns
    with placing Sam with Foster Parents and noted that Sam bonded with them and
    Foster Parents’ own children. Foster Parents took Sam to doctor’s appointments
    and therapy, and on a family camping trip. Sam referred to Foster Parents as “Mom
    and Dad,” and Sam was always sad when he had to leave Foster Parents’ house.
    There was also testimony from caseworkers and therapists concerning the
    best interests of Sam. After Sam was initially placed with Foster Parents,
    Grandmother received visitation rights with Sam. But after the first visit with
    Grandmother, Sam’s demeanor changed, he became more clingy, and he began
    having night terrors. Foster Parents took Sam to a play therapist, who ultimately
    recommended that Sam remain with Foster Parents for stability.
    Caseworker Kyle Sanders recommended placement with Foster Parents:
    10
    “Based on my interactions with [Sam] and both caregivers and both of their homes,
    from what I’ve witnessed and the interactions with [Sam], it appears his emotional
    stability was a little more stable at the [Foster Parents’ home.]” 5 Sanders admitted
    the Department had no initial concerns placing Sam with Grandmother. However,
    by the time of the final determination of conservatorship, the Department had
    developed concerns of “instability, [and] the potential of [Mother] coming back
    into play.” Sanders elaborated that by instability, the Department was mostly
    referring to conflicts that arose between Grandmother and Sam’s therapist because
    Grandmother believed the therapist was biased against her.
    Sanders testified that the Department was further concerned because of
    Sam’s pattern of behavior around Grandmother. In addition to the night terrors,
    when Sam was around Grandmother, he exhibited increased defiance, paid less
    attention, and on numerous occasions, Sam would “act like a cat . . . literally acting
    like an animal, like purring, licking his hands, and batting things like a cat. . . .
    [and] crawl[ing] on top of the couch like a cat[.]” Sanders found this troubling
    because this behavior “wasn’t able to be stopped[,] and Grandmother did not seem
    to be troubled by the behavior when confronted about it.”
    Grandmother filed a motion requesting that the trial court conduct an
    in-chamber interview with Sam before making its final conservatorship
    determination. Sam was approximately five years old at this point. The trial court
    granted the motion and interviewed Sam. Sam’s interview with the trial court is not
    in the record; however, the trial court was able to consider Sam’s self-expressed
    desires in making its determination.
    5
    Although the Department recommended Sam be permanently placed with Foster
    Parents during the proceedings below, we note that in its appellate brief, the Department “takes
    no position on the disputed permanent placement [of Sam.]” The Department alleges it has no
    position because it already received the primary relief it was seeking: the termination of
    Mother’s rights and the naming of a conservator.
    11
    On    this   record, we     cannot     conclude   that   the   trial   court   had
    factually-insufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion or erred in its
    application of this discretion. To the contrary, the record supports the trial court’s
    determination that naming Foster Parents as the sole managing conservators was in
    Sam’s best interest. Likewise, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial
    court’s decision. Accordingly, we overrule Grandmother’s second issue.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    We reverse the portion of the final order of the trial court with respect to the
    conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support termination on the predicate
    ground of Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), and we render the judgment the
    trial court should have rendered, with the result that we strike the conclusion that
    the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection (E).
    We affirm the remaining portion of the final order as challenged on appeal.
    /s/      Charles A. Spain
    Justice
    Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
    12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-24-00276-CV

Filed Date: 10/10/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2024