In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-16-00385-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.A., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Collingsworth County, Texas
Trial Court No. 7985, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
February 3, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, M.A., the biological father of M.A.A., appeals the order terminating his
parental rights. Through four issues, he contends the evidence was insufficient to
support termination. We affirm.
Evidence
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) first
became involved with the child, M.A.A., after a report was made that an altercation had
occurred between her mother and father. Allegedly, M.A. was stabbed by the child’s
mother, C.D., while the child was present. According to the record, both individuals had
been involved in a prior altercation. M.A., himself, had been prosecuted for committing
family violence and was placed on probation.
At the time of M.A.A.’s removal, drug screens were performed on all parties.
That of M.A. resulted in a positive test indicating his use of cocaine.
The record further indicates that C.D. was charged with aggravated assault for
stabbing M.A., to which charge she pled guilty and received probation. At the time of
the hearing, she had been on probation for a year, but had not completed any of the
court ordered services, except for anger management. Furthermore, at the time of the
hearing, the child resided with M.A.’s sister and her husband in Dallas, Texas.
M.A. testified at the hearing. While doing so, he indicated that C.D. stabbed him
while he was “under a no-contact order out of Dallas.” According to C.D., the two were
arguing about going to a store to buy baby formula when he assaulted her and she
responded with a knife. So too did he mention that she had stabbed him on a prior
occasion before the birth of their child. Other of his testimony disclosed that 1) he
participated in a psychological evaluation but failed to attend parenting classes as
recommended by that evaluation, 2) he lived in a homeless shelter, 3) he failed to
complete Batterer’s Intervention classes, 4) he tested positive twice for cocaine use, 5)
he failed to participate in a drug and alcohol evaluation, 6) he was in violation of his
probation and had an active warrant out for his arrest, 7) he moved from hotel to hotel
before entering the homeless shelter, 8) though he had been employed at one time, he
lacked a steady job at the time of the hearing, and 9) he admitted to not completing
requirements imposed on him through the service plan, which requirements he was
2
ordered to complete. When asked why he had not completed work on the services
ordered, M.A. said:
When I was staying with my sister, everything was going
according to plan. I was taking care of the classes. I was
seeing my daughter on a weekly basis. When the landlord
found out I was staying there, my sister had no choice but to
kick me out, because they were going to get kicked out. I
had no choice but to be in the streets, living in my car. I was
staying in hotels, and I was trying to come up with some
money so I could put down some money on an apartment. I
went to my friend’s house, and he said: You can sleep here
tonight. And in the morning when you wake up, you know, go
find a hotel that you can stay at.
At 4:00 in the morning, some guy was texting and drinking
and driving, and he slammed right into me and totaled my
car. When I lost my car, not only do I have a broken rib right
now, it’s fractured. Not only did I lose my car, I lost my job,
and I also became homeless.
The record also indicated that the child was in the same room in which M.A. and
C.D. argued before she stabbed him. Upon being asked, M.A. agreed that it was
dangerous for the child to be around the two fighting parents.
When questioned about his future plans, M.A. said:
Well, the homeless shelter, they - there’s a lot of resources
right there. They have computers where you can apply
online for a job. They have a Texas Work Force. They have
food stamps. They help you with housing. They give you a
certain amount of time you can stay there. And after you get
a job, it’s $10 every day. It’s like $300 a month. My plan is to
get back out there, start working as soon as I can, get out of
there, and get a place to live at, and remain clean and do all
of my services.
He further stated that he would be returning to Dallas after the hearing.
Regarding his future plans for his daughter, M.A. said he “just want[ed] to get
better . . . be able to provide a house for her . . . want[ed] everybody to be happy . . .
3
[m]y plans is - my plan is to do all the services that they require of me, to get another
shot, to remain clean and sober, to get a house, and hopefully, see my daughter again;
hopefully, get her back in my arms.” Yet, he had no concerns for the present placement
of his daughter and believed her foster parents were taking care of her. However, he
did not want the two people the child lived with to adopt the child. These comments
were made despite his having not seen his daughter for about six months.
According to the parents’ caseworker, neither parent had 1) taken advantage of
the services offered by the Department, 2) a stable home throughout the history of the
case, 3) paid child support as ordered by the court, nor 4) attended any services that
would have mitigated the need to remove the child from the home. Based on the child’s
age, both parents posed a risk to the child, said the witness.
On the other hand and in her present placement, M.A. was doing really well and
was developmentally on target. Her caretakers were able to meet her physical and
emotional needs, while the Department’s goal was “adoption by relative.”
After the hearing ended, the trial court terminated the parental rights of both M.A.
and C.D. The grounds consisted of their 1) “engag[ing] in activities that endangered the
physical well-being of the minor child and the emotional well-being of the child,” 2)
failing “to support their child to the best of their ability since being placed on a plan,” and
3) failing “to comply with the Court Orders designed to reintegrate the family.” So too
did it find “by clear and convincing evidence that it [was] in the best interest of the minor
child, [M.A.A.], that the parental rights of both the mother and the father be terminated.“
Only M.A. appealed.
4
Law
The pertinent standards of review are those we discuss in In re L.G., No. 07-14-
00365-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3017 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 26, 2015, no pet.)
(mem. op.), In re C.C., No. 07-12-00500-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5704 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo May 8, 2013, no pet.), and In re D.N., 405 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2013, no pet.). It requires the presence of evidence sufficient to 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. It also obligates us to 1) defer to the fact-finder’s determination of factual
issues, 2) assume that the fact-finder resolved conflicts of evidence in favor of its finding
when reasonable to do so, and 3) disregard evidence that the fact-finder reasonably
could have disbelieved. So too must we look at all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the finding when conducting the legal sufficiency analysis.
Next, the evidence need only support one statutory ground for termination and
the finding that termination was in the child’s best interests. In re L.G., 2015 Tex. App.
LEXIS 3017, at *5. One of the several grounds alleged by the Department involved §
161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code. It permits termination if the trial court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the parent “failed to comply with the provisions of
a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain
the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing
conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than
nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the
abuse or neglect of the child.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(O) (West Supp.
2016).
5
Issues One and Four – Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first issue, M.A. contends that the Department failed to prove termination
was in the best interests of the child. In his fourth issue, he attacks termination on
ground “O” as set forth above. We overrule each issue.
The evidence shows that 1) the child was removed from a violent and abusive
home, 2) M.A. failed to pay child support as ordered by the trial court, 3) being
homeless himself, M.A. could provide no stable home for the child, 4) M.A. did not
maintain viable employment so he lacked financial resources to support a child, 5) he
did not visit the child for the six months preceding termination, 6) he abused illegal
drugs, 7) he knew that to secure the return of his child he was obligated to perform
specific tasks like attending parenting, Batterer’s Intervention, and substance abuse
classes and he did not, 8) he failed to fulfill the court ordered directives to complete a
psychological evaluation and maintain a drug free lifestyle despite his having reviewed
the service plan containing those requirements, 9) he lacked tangible, as opposed to
merely hopeful, plans for his daughter, 9) the child was developing in her new
environment away from M.A., and 10) the child’s caretakers were able to meet her
needs.
Generally, Texas courts undertake a strict approach in applying
§ 161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Family Code. In re D.N., 405 S.W.3d at 877. In doing that,
their focus lies upon a parent’s failure to comply with a court order; the reasons for non-
compliance or the degree of compliance generally are irrelevant. Id. The statute does
not make a provision for excuses. Id.; In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2006, pet. denied). Given the evidence we described throughout this opinion (the
6
reiteration of which being unnecessary), the fact-finder could have formed a firm
conviction and belief that M.A. knowingly failed to comply with the provisions of a court
order specifying the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his child. That
same evidence, when tested against the factors mentioned in Holley v. Adams, 544
S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), is enough to permit a fact-finder to form a firm conviction and
belief that termination of the parental relationship with M.A. was in the best interests of
the child. Consequently, the record contains both legally and factually sufficient
evidence to support at least one statutory ground warranting termination of the parental
relationship and a finding that the child’s best interests are served by termination.
The remaining issues need not be addressed since they involve the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the other statutory grounds upon which termination was based.
Our having found one ground to be sufficiently supported by the evidence, review of the
others is unnecessary.
The order of the trial court terminating the parental relationship between M.A.
and M.A.A. is affirmed.
Per Curiam
7
in the Interest of M.A.A., a Child
Combined Opinion