Affirmed and Opinion Issued March 11, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01552-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.G., III AND T.B., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11-1115-W-304th
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Francis
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services petitioned to terminate the
parental rights of the mother and fathers to C.G. III and T.B. Following a ten-day jury trial, the
trial court terminated Mother’s rights to both children and Father’s rights to T.B. The trial court
did not terminate C.G. III’s father’s parental rights, and he is not a party to this appeal. In three
issues, Father and Mother contend (1) the trial court erred by denying their motions for leave to
file amended pleadings to name managing conservators for their children and by denying their
requested jury charge on conservatorship, and (2) to the extent the complaints raised in their first
two issues were waived, they claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
Father raises an additional point, claiming he is entitled to a supplemental clerk’s record
containing a copy of his requested jury charge. Neither parent challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the terminations. We affirm.
In his third issue, Father claims the parties’ requested jury charge is lost and we must
remand for a hearing on what constitutes an accurate copy. On February 6, 2014, in response to
this Court’s request, the district clerk filed a supplemental record containing a copy of the
parents’ proposed charge of the court. Because the record now contains the parents’ requested
jury charge, we conclude Father’s third issue is moot.
In their second issue, Mother and Father contend the trial court abused its discretion by
refusing to submit a jury issue regarding managing conservatorship of each child when the issue
was properly pleaded or, alternatively, tried by consent.
We review a trial court’s submission of jury questions under an abuse of discretion
standard. Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). The trial court
has broad discretion in submitting jury questions, subject only to the limitation that controlling
issues of fact must be submitted to the jury. Rosell v. Cent. W. Motor Stages, Inc., 89 S.W.3d
643, 653 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied); see also Triplex Commc’ns. v. Riley, 900
S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex. 1995) (“If an issue is properly pleaded and is supported by some
evidence, a litigant is entitled to have controlling questions submitted to the jury.”).
In the context of a parental termination case, the controlling question is whether a
parent’s rights should be terminated. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649
(Tex. 1990) (op. on reh’g); see Ayala v. Tex. Dept. of Family & Regulatory Servs., No. 03-09-
00121-CV, 2010 WL 3672351, at *4 (Tex. App—Austin Sept. 16, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(because controlling question in case was whether appellant’s parental rights should be
terminated, appellant not entitled to question concerning conservatorship); In the Interest of
J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 129 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (in parental termination
cases, controlling question is whether relationship between parent and each child should be
terminated). Here, the trial court asked the controlling question and did not abuse its discretion
–2–
by refusing to submit additional questions. See E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 649. We overrule Mother’s
and Father’s second issue. In reaching this conclusion, we need not address their first and third
issues.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Molly Francis/
131552F.P05 MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF C.G. III AND T.B., On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District
CHILDREN, Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11-1115-W-304th.
No. 05-13-01552-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Francis,
Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 11th day of March, 2014.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–4–
in the Interest Of: C.G., III and T.B., Children
Combined Opinion