In re Interest of G.C.S.

• Decision Date: 09 August 2022
• Docket Number: 08-22-00038-CV
• Parties: In the INTEREST OF: G.C.S., Jr., a Child
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

657 S.W.3d 114

In the INTEREST OF: G.C.S., Jr., a Child

No. 08-22-00038-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

August 9, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (FATHER): Richard Deck, 1113 E. Yandell Dr., El Paso, TX 79902.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (MOTHER): John L. Williams, 1119 E. San Antonio, El Paso, TX 79901.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Michael Burton, Office of General Counsel, Texas Departement of Family and Protective Services, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, TX 78714-9030.

ATTORNEY AD LITEM: Jose M. Munoz, JM Munoz Law Firm, 5823 N Mesa St # 720, El Paso, TX 79912-4607.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE CHILD: c/o CASA, 221 N. Kansas St., Ste. 1501, El Paso, TX 79901.

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.), Marion, C.J. (Ret.)(Sitting by assignment)

OPINION

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Appellants T.A. (Mother) and G.S.M. (Father) appeal the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to G.C.S., Jr., who is the child who is the subject of the underlying suit.¹ In separate appeals, Mother and Father contend the evidence presented at trial was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination of their parental rights to G.C.S., Jr.² We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In three settings between December 2021 and February 2022, the trial court presided over a final hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department). The Department presented testimony from an investigator and a caseworker. The attorney ad litem presented testimony from Father. Although Mother did not appear, she was represented by appointed counsel throughout the final hearing.³

A. Investigator's testimony

Kimberly Blair-Santaella, an investigator with the Department, testified that she received an intake on October 14, 2020, involving an allegation of neglectful supervision with respect to Mother and her three children, G.C.S., Jr., Z.A., and L.A. Blair-Santaella responded to the police station where she learned that Mother had been involved in a car accident. At the time of the accident, Mother was traveling with two of her three children, three-year-old G.C.S., Jr., and seven-year-old Z.A. Police alleged that mother had been driving while intoxicated and her children were not properly restrained while riding in her car. She was also accused of leaving L.A., her nine-year old autistic son, at home by himself. Following the interview, the Department determined that Mother's conduct endangered the safety and well-being of all three children and took custody of all three because there was no alternative caregiver available at the time.

Blair-Santaella testified regarding her interview of Mother at the police station. Mother claimed she had only had two beers and she merely planned to go around the corner to buy a pizza for her children. Mother explained she left L.A. at home because he liked watching YouTube and she would return quickly. She said she did not own car seats for her children and gave no response as to why they were not wearing seatbelts. Mother said that a friend had been with her in the car at the time of the accident but left the scene. Mother acknowledged that she had previous involvement with CPS while she was living in California. She described that she had lost her parental rights to four other children due to a previous addiction to methamphetamine. Mother admitted that she occasionally drank alcohol.

Blair-Santaella testified that Mother appeared to be minimizing the incident, viewing it as not a "big deal." She provided contact information for G.S.M., her husband, asserting he would possibly care for the three children. G.S.M. is G.C.S., Jr.’s biological father, and Z.A.’s and L.A.’s step-father. Blair-Santaella successfully contacted Father and informed him of the incident involving Mother. He offered to care for all three children, not just G.C.S., Jr. He told Blair-Santaella he would call to set up a meeting after he bailed Mother out of jail.

On December 14, 2020, the trial court held an adversary hearing wherein the trial court granted the Department's request for termination as to Z.A. and L.A., but not as to G.C.S., Jr. because Father was designated as a non-offending parent and had no part in Mother's neglectful supervision. At that point, the trial court ordered that G.C.S., Jr. be reunified with Father and the Department was ordered to return G.C.S., Jr. to his Father. Upon issuance of the reunification order, Blair-Santaella went to find Father to inform him of the court's order. She located him at a grocery store where he claimed to be working for tips, helping customers with putting their groceries in their cars. Blair-Santaella told Father that a court hearing had taken place and reunification had been ordered. She followed him to his apartment.

Blair-Santaella testified that Father's apartment was small and the front living room had lots of children's and women's clothing thrown about all over the place. Blair-Santaella testified the apartment felt cold and lacked heat. She saw a propane tank with a heating apparatus on the floor of the kitchen, a broken toilet, exposed wiring, and one bed. There was no access to hot water. Father reported that Mother was living with him but she was not currently staying there because she had stomach issues and needed a working toilet.

Blair-Santaella testified that Father had refused to be reunified with G.C.S., Jr. only, expressing instead that he wanted Mother, himself, and the three children all living together. Responding to his request, Blair-Santaella expressed she had concerns, both about Mother living with Father, and about the unsafe conditions of the apartment. Father told her he was working on repairing the electrical wiring, the lack of heat, and the broken toilet; and he conveyed his firm belief that Mother should live with him as she was his wife.

The same day, Blair-Santaella met with Mother and she confirmed that she was not living at Father's apartment because the toilet was not working properly. She also reported she would not leave G.C.S., Jr. alone with Father, and Father had agreed with her, because he would need Mother to care for the child while he worked.

Due to concerns that Mother and Father were residing in the same home, and the home was inappropriate for G.C.S., Jr. due to electrical hazards and lack of heat and utilities, the Department determined that G.C.S., Jr. had to be removed a second time. The next day, December 15, 2020, the Department filed an original petition for termination of parental rights with affidavit attached and obtained temporary managing conservatorship of C.G.S., Jr. For a short time, G.C.S., Jr. was placed with the Child Crisis Center, and after January 2021, he then was placed with three different foster homes. As of December 28, 2021, G.C.S., Jr. has resided in a foster home in Laredo, Texas.

Blair-Santaella began an investigation on the newly instituted case and testified that, throughout her investigation, Mother continued to live with Father. Blair-Santaella reported that she provided Father general referrals to assist him with his apartment's safety concerns. However, there were barriers to Father obtaining assistance because he was not a legal citizen. Father told Blair-Santaella the apartment belonged to a friend who allowed him to stay. He claimed he was talking with his friend about making repairs. Father also told Blair-Santaella that he did not want any of his adult children to be considered as caretakers for G.C.S., Jr. as he did not want to burden them.

Blair-Santaella further testified that Mother had two previous cases involving G.C.S., Jr. In a 2017 case, Mother was validated for neglectful supervision after G.C.S., Jr. and Z.A. were left alone in a vehicle for about thirty minutes. In a May 2020 case, Mother was ruled out for neglectful supervision.

On cross examination, Blair-Santaella acknowledged she did not call Father's landlord to inquire further about the conditions of the apartment, did not offer governmental assistance so that Father could get another apartment, and did not offer job training to Father. Blair-Santaella noted, however, that she gave Father referrals for general assistance with Project Vida and Project Amistad. However, she did not explain those programs to him or assist him with calling for assistance. Blair-Santaella reiterated she had concerns separate from Father's minimal income such as the dangerous environment of his home and the fact that he continued to live with Mother.

B. Caseworker's testimony

Caseworker Alexis Conrad testified she visited with Mother on January 7, 2021, to discuss her service plan. Their meeting took place on the porch of Father's apartment. Mother claimed she had not been using drugs nor had she had "that much" to drink when she had the car accident. Mother spoke about the removal of her four other children in California due to her previous addiction to methamphetamine and claimed she had not used drugs for many years. Mother claimed she had an apartment elsewhere and was not living at the apartment with Father. Conrad had earlier visited Mother's apartment. From her visit, Conrad noted safety concerns with that apartment due to its small size, the lack of a refrigerator or stove, a leaky bathroom, and Mother's report that it had been broken into twice during the pendency of the case. Mother reported she was evicted from her apartment in October 2021, after which she went to live with Father.

When asked about later visits with Mother, Conrad testified she also spoke with Mother at Father's apartment, on December 7, 2021. On that occasion, Conrad had observed clothing and trash on the couch, a propane tank attached to a fire pit in the middle of the kitchen, and standing water in the bathroom that Mother used to mop the apartment. Conrad took photos depicting the conditions of the apartment, which were admitted into evidence.

Conrad detailed the service plan ordered by the trial...