In re E.G.P.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 09-22-00330-CV |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.P. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Submitted on February 1, 2023
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County Texas Trial Cause No. 21-10-13621-CV
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
Mother and the alleged Father appeal an order terminating their parental rights to their child, Eric.[1] The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds exist for termination of their parental rights, and termination of Mother's and Father's rights would be in the best interest of Eric. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann §§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (M), (N), (O), (2), 161.002(b)(1). On appeal, Mother and Father raise several issues. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
The affidavit of removal stated that Mother and Father had other children who had been removed by the Department in a prior proceeding.[2],[3] According to the affidavit, Mother gave birth to Eric in September 2021, and Mother and Father were hiding the child from the Department. The affidavit stated that the Department had concerns that Mother was on methamphetamines and that the parents did not have any baby supplies for Eric. The Department reported that Mother was observed running after Father's vehicle with Eric inside of the vehicle. The child's maternal grandmother reported that she had spoken to both parents, and they insisted that they are "clean[.]" The Department contacted both parents and both denied using drugs despite testing positive for methamphetamine. Mother and Father stated they would comply with drug testing. The Department alleged that Father refused to let the Department enter his residence stating, "he wasn't ready for a home visit." The affidavit quotes the guardian ad litem, alleging the parents have not maintained contact with the guardian ad litem and have not shown up for visitation with their other children. The affidavit concluded by stating the parents have not maintained contact with the Department or completed drug testing.
The case was tried in a bench trial on September 7, 2022, and Mother and Father did not appear for trial. Before the commencement of trial, Mother's attorney requested a continuance for Mother to complete her family service plan because Mother's attorney represented that Mother had recently completed a 30-day inpatient rehabilitation treatment. The trial court stated the case was already continued from July 27th to September 7th. In discussing its decision, the trial court noted that Mother did not appear at hearings in February, May, or at an initial setting for final trial in July, although the record shows that Mother did appear for a May 26, 2022, hearing. Mother's counsel argued that Mother's absence was due to her working and being dependent on Father for transportation. The trial court denied the Motion for Continuance.
Alexis McQueen testified she is the current Department caseworker on this case, but she explained she has only been the caseworker for two months. McQueen stated that the Department requested Eric be removed from his parents because "[t]he child was born during the course of the other case and there were concerns that the parents were using methamphetamines and they had no supplies to care for the child's needs." According to McQueen, Mother signed a family service plan that required her to "complete parenting classes, a psychological evaluation, a drug and alcohol assessment, random drug screenings, maintain contact with the Department, and stable income and housing." Mother completed the parenting class, the drug and alcohol assessment, and attended a 30-day inpatient treatment recommended after her drug and alcohol assessment. McQueen testified that she has never received any information that Mother completed the inpatient program other than an unreadable intake form, and a discharge form provided by Mother's attorney which is illegible. McQueen confirmed Mother also attended weekly follow-up therapy sessions and weekly drug testing as a result of her inpatient therapy. McQueen has not received evidence that Mother failed any of those weekly drug tests. Additionally, Mother has not provided McQueen any proof of her residence.
McQueen testified regarding Mother's and Father's communication with the Department. McQueen believes that the parents are in a relationship and live together. During the time that McQueen has been on the case, Mother has communicated via email, only, she has not asked about the welfare of her child, and she has not visited Eric since May. Father has not maintained contact with the Department, and the only contact the Department has with Father is through Mother. McQueen testified she reached out to both parents three times for visitation and the parents did not attend visitation with Eric.
McQueen stated that Father was also ordered per his family service plan to complete "parenting classes, a drug and alcohol assessment, a psychological evaluation, random drug screenings, maintain contact with the Department, and [demonstrate] stable income and housing." Father completed the parenting class, the drug and alcohol assessment, and the psychosocial assessment. Father has not allowed the Department to assess his home. McQueen agreed that it is impossible for the Department to recommend returning Eric to a home that it has never visited.
McQueen testified that Eric has been in foster care since October 2021 and he is happy and "doing great." According to McQueen, the foster parents are meeting all Eric's needs and want to adopt him if the parents' rights are terminated. McQueen stated that Eric has struggled during visitation with Mother, he has no bond with Mother, and he cries during the entire visitation until he is reunited with his foster parents. McQueen testified that for the parents to be able to get their child back, they needed to work toward coming to more visitations and have negative drug screenings. Since she has been the caseworker, Mother and Father have not formed a bond with Eric because they have not attended visitation consistently. She believes it is in Eric's best interest to remain in foster care.
Rosario Salinas testified she is a supervisor for CASA and was employed by the Department for two years prior to working for CASA. During her employment with the Department, she was a caseworker on Mother's and Father's case. Salinas stopped working for the Department in July. She testified that the parents had a case with the Department when Eric was born, resulting in Eric's removal. According to Salinas, the Department had concerns about the parents' substance abuse, lack of stable housing, and employment.
She confirmed that Mother completed several requirements of her family service plan, but stated Mother failed to maintain contact with the Department, failed to maintain stable housing, failed to appear for drug testing, and failed to provide proof of employment. Salinas testified the last drug test Mother appeared for was a urinalysis that was negative. She stated Mother's and Father's visitation was "sporadic[.]" Salinas would supervise the visits and described Eric as upset and crying "a lot." Salinas also confirmed there were times she would intervene in the visitation to help Mother. Salinas stated that some months she could not communicate with the parents, or the parents were not available to visit Eric. Salinas' last visits with the parents were in May of 2022, despite Salinas offering additional opportunities for the parents to visit with Eric.
According to Salinas, Father completed several requirements of his family service plan, but he failed to complete other requirements. Father failed to provide proof of employment, failed to complete recommendations of his alcohol assessment, and he failed to provide proof of stable housing. She described visits between Father and Eric as "fine[,]" and noted Father was able to calm Eric down. But Salinas stated that Father only attended two visits with Eric. Salinas testified that Father would randomly reach out to her for additional visits, and when she would arrange the visitation, Father would not respond to any further communication. Both Mother and Father blamed employment responsibilities or lack of transportation for visits with Eric.
During the case, Salinas presented each parent with copies of their positive drug tests. According to Salinas, "[t]hey were surprised, and then [the parents] said, 'That was the last time we've used.'" She took that as an admission of drug use from the parents.
Salinas stated that Mother's and Father's rights to their other children were terminated. She testified that Eric has been in only one foster home during this entire case, and his foster parents wish to adopt him. Eric meets with his biological siblings on a regular basis and keeps a connection with them. She believes it is in Eric's best interest for the parents' rights to be terminated.
Michael Quinn stated that he is the CASA supervisor and advocate for this case. He stated that Eric's siblings were already in the Department's care when Eric was removed from his parents. He has visited Eric at his foster home and believes Eric is doing "very, very well." Quinn testified he has no concerns about Eric in foster care. According to Quinn, the foster parents are meeting the emotional needs of Eric and want to adopt him. Eric is "tightly bonded" with his foster parents and foster siblings, and their home is "his home."
Quinn testified he has never visited the parents' home although he made monthly requests to...
To continue reading
Request your trial