Guillory, In Interest of
| Decision Date | 02 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17924,17924 |
| Citation | 618 S.W.2d 948 |
| Parties | In the Interest of Tisha Kay GUILLORY, a Child. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Wm. Louis White, Huntsville, for appellant.
W. Stephen Rodgers, Bryan, for appellee.
This is a suit to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father of Tisha Kay Guillory, a child. The father has relinquished his parental rights by filing an affidavit waiving his rights. The mother appeals from a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights.
Tisha Kay Guillory was born August 30, 1977. Her mother, Nancy Guillory, was on probation for a heroin charge at the time of her birth. The father of Tisha was Alvis Allen Bell. In January of 1978, Nancy Guillory called the Bell family residence and asked them to take Tisha for a couple of weeks. Melinda Pertl, one of the petitioners herein, and Jimmy Bell picked up Tisha from Nancy's brother who worked at a wrecking yard. Nancy informed Jimmy and Melinda that she could not take care of Tisha at that time as she had no place to stay. At the time Tisha was picked up, she had a very wet diaper, dirty hair and a flaking scalp. She also had a bad cough and was taking cough medicine. Approximately one week later, Nancy requested Mr. and Mrs. Pertl to return Tisha, however Mrs. Pertl persuaded Nancy to leave the child with her. The following week Nancy returned and took possession of Tisha. On February 22, 1978, at a temporary custody hearing Mrs. Pertl was made the managing conservator of Tisha. The order gave Nancy visitation rights every two weeks, and Nancy came to see Tisha on her first four visitation dates but has not returned. Nancy has been in the Texas Department of Corrections since May 13, 1979 for aggravated robbery. Her earliest discharge date is May 13, 1982, and her latest discharge date is May 13, 1984.
Mr. and Mrs. Pertl are the aunt and uncle of Tisha. They have been married fourteen years and have two children. Tisha has lived with them since she was five months old. Tisha refers to the Pertls as Momma and Daddy. The Pertls attend church regularly.
By her first point of error the appellant alleges there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant voluntarily left the child in the possession of another, not the parent and, although expressing an intent to return, failed to do so without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months.
The language of this finding of fact is derived from subsection (1)(C) of Section 15.02, Texas Family Code, which provides the following:
(C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;
The record reflects that the appellant voluntarily left her child with the appellees herein for a period of one week and then returned to claim the child. The record further reflects that when appellant was given an opportunity to visit with her child she did so for four consecutive visitation periods and has not visited the child since. Appellee did not meet her burden of proof under section 15.02(1)(C) Texas Family Code because there is no evidence that appellant voluntarily remained away for a period of at least six months. Appellant's first point of error is sustained.
By her second point of error, appellant asserts there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant knowingly placed and knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical and emotional well being of the child.
The language of the above finding of the court is derived from Article 15.02(1)(D), which reads as follows:
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
The evidence proffered by the appellees to support termination of parental rights under 15.02(1)(D) of the Family Code was primarily the testimony of Jimmy Bell and Melinda Pertl. Their testimony revealed that when appellant called for them to come get Tisha, they went from Deenville, Texas to Houston, to the address given to them by the appellant. The location was a wrecking yard and they found the appellant, two of her brothers and Tisha in a building similar to a trailer house on the back of the premises. When they entered the building, the smell of glue was of such intensity that it, "Like knock you down." The two brothers offered Jimmy Bell a bag with glue and some other contents in it to sniff, but he refused to take the bag. Tisha's physical condition at this time has been heretofore described, but it was also testified, that when Melinda and Jimmy entered the premises, Tisha was crying and her diaper was so saturated with urine that the urine had gone through the blanket wrapped around her. Tisha was about five months old at that time.
When Melinda and Jimmy started to leave the premises with Tisha, appellant told them "She couldn't take care of it (Tisha) right now, because her (appellant's) head was jacked out of shape." The evidence reflected further that after Tisha was born the appellant and Tisha went to live with appellant's father and step-mother. Her father testified that Nancy and Tisha were welcome to live in his home, but that he had had "hard talks, with Nancy and she would come and go as she pleased with the baby" until she gave the baby to the Pertls." There is no evidence where Nancy took Tisha during the absence from her father's home. One of Nancy's brothers who was living at the wrecking yard had been convicted of burglary two times.
We hold that the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the appellant placed her five month old child in conditions and surroundings which would endanger the physical and emotional well being of that child. The appellant's second point of error is overruled.
Appellant alleges in her third point of error that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant engaged in conduct which endangered the physical and emotional well being of the child. Section 15.02(1)(E), Texas Family Code, states as follows:
(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed a child with persons who engage in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
The appellant's life style was less then exemplary as is evidenced by the fact that she was pregnant with Tisha before being divorced from her husband and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuellar v. State, 13-96-571-CR
...Code. Dupree v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, no writ); In the Interest of Guillory, 618 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981 no writ). A child whose father died while the child was in its mother's womb can inhe......
-
Edwards v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
...child. Dupree, 907 S.W.2d at 84. One parent's drug-related endangerment of the child may be imputed to the other parent. In the Interest of Guillory, 618 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). The relevant conduct includes not only the parents' conduct as evidenc......
-
G.W.H. v. D.A.H.
...it is not necessary that the harmful conduct of a parent be directed at the child, or that the child actually suffer injury. In re Guillory, 618 S.W.2d 948, 950-951 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ); Allred v. Harris County Child Welfare Unit, 615 S.W.2d 803, 806 (Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
H.C., In Interest of
...Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); In Interest of Guillory, 618 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). Once the Department introduced evidence of Santos' emotional and physical abuse of he......