in the Interest of M. T. & P. T., Children ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                   NO. 12-21-00118-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    IN THE INTEREST OF                               §      APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
    M.T. & P.T.,                                     §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    CHILDREN                                         §      NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    J.T. and T.T. appeal the termination of their parental rights. J.T.’s and T.T.’s counsel
    filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
     (1967), and Gainous v. State, 
    436 S.W.2d 137
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    J.T. is the father and T.T. is the mother of M.T. and P.T. On July 29, 2020, the
    Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for
    protection of M.T. and P.T., for conservatorship, and for termination of J.T.’s and T.T.’s parental
    rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, and the
    parents were granted limited access to, and possession of, the children.
    At trial, neither parent appeared. The trial judge noted that on April 16, 2021, he inquired
    about appointing an attorney for the parents. The parents requested an appointed attorney, but
    neither parent contacted the court to obtain an indigency application or completed an application.
    Macee Skillern, the Department’s caseworker, testified that the parents were in court on April
    16, when the final hearing date was announced. Further, she stated that she sent J.T. and T.T.
    notice of the trial date and the information for them to participate by Zoom, and contacted the
    parents two days before trial to remind them of the hearing. According to Skillern, the parents
    lived approximately one and one-half miles from the courthouse, within walking distance and
    1
    easy access to public transportation.
    Skillern testified that the Department received a referral of neglectful supervision of both
    children and of substance abuse by both parents. During interviews, both children reported that
    their parents used a “green leafy” substance in their presence. M.T. stated that he traveled with
    J.T. to a home where his father obtained a baggie of a “white powdery” substance. P.T. also
    made an outcry of domestic violence where she witnessed her father hitting her mother and
    pulling her mother’s hair. Skillern stated that she had multiple conversations with the children
    regarding witnessing violence between their parents. M.T. remembered an incident in which
    P.T. was playing outside when he saw his father hitting his mother. M.T. went outside, brought
    P.T. back into the home, and hid the children in a closet to try to keep them safe. During that
    incident, P.T. stated that she saw her father pinning her mother against a wall by her throat and
    lifting her mother off the ground in a choking manner. M.T. also stated that he was hit by his
    father when he tried to intervene during an altercation between the parents. The parents both
    denied the incidents happened.
    Skillern believed that the parents’ drug use in the children’s presence and the children’s
    exposure to domestic violence were conditions or surroundings that endangered the children’s
    physical or emotional well being. Further, Skillern believed that in leaving the children in these
    circumstances, J.T. and T.T. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons
    who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well being.
    Skillern testified that a family plan of service was generated for both parents, filed with
    the court, and made an order of the trial court. But neither parent completed the service plan’s
    requirement that they build a sober support group that reinforced a sober lifestyle. She stated
    that the parents reported that they relied heavily on J.T.’s mother for their support group.
    However, Skillern stated that J.T.’s mother allegedly used illegal substances in the children’s
    home.
    As part of their required service plan, the parents were obligated to complete a drug
    assessment with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council (ADAC) and follow all recommendations.
    Skillern stated that T.T. completed an initial ADAC drug assessment and was referred to
    outpatient services. After receiving outpatient services, Skillern stated that T.T. again tested
    positive for methamphetamine.        After Skillern asked T.T. to complete a second ADAC
    assessment, the assessment recommended T.T. complete an inpatient program. T.T. began
    2
    receiving services in an inpatient program on June 21, 2021, and stopped receiving services on
    June 29. Skillern stated that T.T. was unsuccessfully discharged from the inpatient program
    because she did not want to complete the program. According to Skillern, J.T. completed an
    ADAC assessment and was referred for inpatient services. However, as recently as June 2021,
    J.T. told Skillern and the CASA volunteer that he did not believe he needed inpatient services
    and was not going to complete such services. Skillern stated that J.T. reported that he needed to
    take care of his ill mother.
    Further, the service plan required both parents to submit to random drug testing. Skillern
    stated that neither parent tested regularly when requested by the Department even though she
    explained that failure to test when requested counted as a positive drug test. J.T. failed to test
    when requested over twenty times, and T.T. failed to test when requested over fifteen times. On
    April 16, 2021, both parents were ordered to submit to drug testing after a court hearing but did
    not appear as ordered. Skillern testified that on April 20, J.T.’s hair follicle test was positive for
    methamphetamine metabolite. On May 20, T.T.’s urinalysis was positive for marijuana and
    methamphetamine. According to Skillern, J.T. and T.T. failed to complete a court ordered drug
    substance abuse program, and both parents used controlled substances after that date and in a
    manner that endangered the health or safety of their children.
    Skillern testified that both parents were required by their service plan to participate in
    counseling to learn the signs of domestic violence and its impact on children. They were
    referred to Crossover Counseling but failed to participate in domestic violence counseling.
    Skillern stated that she spoke to T.T. alone regarding the domestic violence in the home and
    offered to assist her if she needed help to leave a dangerous situation. However, T.T. told
    Skillern that she did not believe she was in any danger or in a domestic violence relationship.
    J.T. was required to complete a Batterer’s Intervention Prevention Program (BIPP) as part of his
    service plan to address domestic violence and its affect on the children’s development. He failed
    to do so.
    Both parents were required to complete a psychosocial assessment as part of the service
    plan and to follow all recommendations.          Skillern stated that neither parent completed a
    psychosocial assessment even though the Department referred them to a psychologist’s office
    three separate times. They scheduled a fourth appointment at their own expense but failed to
    appear. According to Skillern, J.T. and T.T. did not successfully complete any of the services on
    3
    their service plan.
    Skillern testified that the children were removed once before, in 2015, based on M.T.
    obtaining a shotgun in the house and shooting it twice. That investigation found that the parents
    were under the influence of methamphetamine. According to Skillern, M.T. and P.T. do not
    believe that their parents would be able to keep them safe, and M.T. expressed fear of entering
    foster care again. She stated that neither child wanted to return home, particularly M.T., or be
    with relatives who they do not believe can keep them safe. Both children have told their parents
    that they did not feel comfortable returning home nor is either child comfortable participating in
    Zoom calls with their parents. Skillern testified that both children would like to stay in foster
    care until they could find a family that would offer them a safe and appropriate home. The
    children have a strong bond even though they are in separate foster homes due to M.T.’s
    behavioral problems.
    Skillern believed that it was in the children’s best interest for J.T.’s and T.T.’s parental
    rights to be terminated. She stated that after almost one year, the parents failed to show that they
    are protective towards the children and failed to address the issues that created the situation
    leading to the Department’s involvement. The CASA volunteer and the children’s attorney ad
    litem both recommended that J.T.’s and T.T.’s parental rights be terminated.
    At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence
    that J.T. engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of his
    parental rights under subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) of Texas Family Code Section
    161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of
    the parent-child relationship between J.T., M.T., and P.T. is in the children’s best interest. Based
    on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between J.T., M.T.,
    and P.T. be terminated.
    The trial court also found by clear and convincing evidence that T.T. engaged in one or
    more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of her parental rights under
    subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) of Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court found by clear and
    convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between T.T., M.T., and
    P.T. is in the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the
    parent-child relationship between T.T., M.T., and P.T. be terminated. This appeal followed.
    4
    ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
    J.T.’s and T.T.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that counsel
    diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
    reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This court
    previously held that Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the
    Department moved for termination. See In re K.S.M., 
    61 S.W.3d 632
    , 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler
    2001, no pet.). In compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of
    the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any
    grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744,
     
    87 S. Ct. at 1400
    ;
    Mays v. State, 
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
    In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
    record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See
    Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We
    carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that
    might arguably support the appeal. 1 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,
    
    160 S.W.3d 641
    , 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).
    DISPOSITION
    We agree with J.T.’s and T.T.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel for
    J.T. and T.T. has moved to withdraw. In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that the right
    to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the
    Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” 
    520 S.W.3d 24
    , 27 (Tex.
    2016). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to J.T. and T.T. has not yet been discharged. See 
    id.
     If
    J.T. and T.T., after consulting with counsel, desire to file a petition for review, counsel should
    timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
    Anders brief.” See 
    id. at 27-28
    ; see also A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No.
    03-16-00543-CV, 
    2016 WL 5874880
    , at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
    op.). Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the trial court’s
    1
    In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel for J.T. and T.T. certified that he provided them with a copy of
    his brief, informed them of their right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate their review
    of the appellate record. 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). J.T. and T.T. were given time to file their
    own brief, but the time for filing such brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
    5
    judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
    Opinion delivered December 21, 2021.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    6
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    DECEMBER 21, 2021
    NO. 12-21-00118-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF M.T. & P.T., CHILDREN
    Appeal from the 420th District Court
    of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C2035889)
    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
    and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
    judgment.
    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
    the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
    for observance.
    By per curiam opinion.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and, Neeley, J.
    7