in the Interest of K.K.N. A/K/A K.K.N., a Child

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-18-00079-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 26, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Affirmed on June 26, 2018, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed the appeal of C.N. (Father) regarding the trial court's decree that terminated his parental rights to his child K.K.N. (Karen) and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as the sole managing conservator. The trial court based its decision on findings of abandonment, constructive abandonment, and noncompliance with a family service plan, as outlined in Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 161.001(b)(1)(B). The court also determined that terminating Father’s rights was in the child’s best interest. The Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights to Karen and her other children, without contesting the termination. Father challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the findings of abandonment and best interest, conceding his failure to comply with the family service plan. The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions, leading to the affirmation of the termination decree.

The case originated in 2012 with a Child Support Review Order establishing Father as Karen's biological parent, assigning joint managing conservatorship with the Mother, who could determine the child's primary residence. Father was also ordered to pay child and medical support. In 2016, the Department sought to modify conservatorship and terminate parental rights following reports of neglectful supervision by the Mother, who had failed to make progress in addressing her issues, including drug use during her pregnancies. The Department ultimately sought temporary conservatorship for all four of Mother’s children due to a lack of suitable caregivers.

On August 29, 2016, the Department investigator received a case involving allegations of medical neglect concerning Karen, a two-year-old, reported on February 15, 2013. The referral indicated that Karen had a black eye, untreated asthma, and signs of malnutrition, suggesting possible abuse by the Mother. Although the Father was considered a potential stable environment for Karen, he was ruled out due to concerns about his mental health issues, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The Father expressed concerns about Karen’s medical needs but failed to seek medical help, attributing this to his learning difficulties. He admitted to marijuana use and also using synthetic marijuana. 

The Mother, who had a history with the Department, including a prior case related to another child's death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, allowed the children to stay unsupervised with the Father despite her concerns about his mental health. From December 2015 to August 2016, the Department struggled to engage the parents in required services due to their frequent relocations and lack of valid contact information. Although they started a parenting class, they did not complete it, missed substance abuse counseling appointments, and failed to appear for drug testing. 

On August 22, 2016, the Mother reported the three older children were living with her and subsequently tested positive for marijuana. The Department developed family service plans for both parents, which were adopted by the trial court. The Father's plan required attendance at court hearings, completion of a parenting class, stability in housing and income, and participation in drug testing and assessments. He only completed a Children’s Crisis Care Center assessment. 

During the trial, the Mother testified about relinquishing her parental rights to her four children, while a caseworker reported that the two oldest girls had been placed in a foster home that was meeting their needs, with noticeable improvements in their demeanor. The trial court accepted the Mother's relinquishment affidavit as voluntary and scheduled a trial for the children's fathers, including Karen's father, who is the appellant in this matter.

Father's attorney was present at the trial, but Father was absent, citing the need to pick up his son from school. His request for a continuance was denied. The caseworker detailed the Department's involvement with the children, indicating that the three oldest, including Karen, were initially removed from Mother due to neglect and later returned to her, only to be taken again after Mother tested positive for drugs. Despite attempts to engage with services, Mother ultimately relinquished her parental rights to all four children.

Father had limited interaction with the caseworker, and the trial court had previously ordered no contact due to his aggressive behavior. Nevertheless, Father violated this order. Although he completed a 4 C’s assessment, he refused multiple drug tests required for visitation with Karen, leading to further aggression towards the caseworker. The Department received referrals concerning another child living with Father, but he was untraceable during investigations.

A certified copy of Father’s prior criminal conviction for tampering with evidence was submitted. At the time of trial, Karen had been in the Department's care for over a year, during which Father provided no support and had not seen her. Karen's foster parents are willing to adopt her and her older sister, providing a stable and healthy environment, with no seizures reported since her placement. The caseworker acknowledged potential mental health concerns regarding Father, and the Child Advocate noted challenges in contacting him. Ultimately, it was determined that it would not be in Karen's best interest to maintain a relationship with Father due to his prolonged absence.

The trial court concluded that Father’s parental rights were terminated based on Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(C) and (O), determining that this action was in the child's best interest. In its written judgment, the court cited sections 161.001(b)(1)(B), (N), and (O), all of which relate to abandonment. The court's written judgment supersedes its oral pronouncement. Father challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination grounds and the best-interest finding, emphasizing the serious constitutional implications of involuntary termination of parental rights. While parental rights are constitutionally significant, they are not absolute and must be balanced with the child's emotional and physical needs. The burden of proof for termination is heightened to a clear and convincing standard, which requires evidence that leads to a firm belief in the truth of the allegations. The review process for legal sufficiency involves considering evidence favorably towards the finding, while factual sufficiency requires weighing all evidence, with deference given to the fact finder's conclusions. Specifically, subsection (O) mandates clear and convincing evidence of a parent's failure to comply with court-ordered requirements for regaining custody after a child has been in the conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for at least nine months due to abuse or neglect. Father admits that the evidence supports the trial court's finding under subsection (O).

An unchallenged finding of fact is binding, unless proven otherwise by law or with lack of supporting evidence. In this case, unchallenged findings supported the termination of Father’s parental rights under section 161.001(1)(O) of the Family Code, as the trial court incorporated Father’s family service plans into a court order, and evidence showed the children were removed due to Mother's illegal drug use and that Father did not complete his service plan. Only one predicate finding is necessary for termination if it is also in the child's best interest. Although Father contested the sufficiency of evidence for findings under subsections (B) and (N), the court concluded that sufficient evidence existed under subsection (O), negating the need to address his arguments regarding the other subsections.

Father also challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the child’s best interest. Factors considered include the child’s desires, physical and emotional needs, potential dangers, parental abilities, available assistance programs, custody plans, home stability, parental conduct, and any justifications for parental actions. Courts generally presume that children’s best interests are upheld by remaining with their natural parents, placing the burden on the Department to prove otherwise. Prompt and permanent placement in a safe environment is also seen as being in the children's best interest.

Father contends that the evidence presented at trial primarily focuses on Mother’s drug use and the shortcomings of Karen’s siblings’ father. In evaluating the trial court's findings regarding the best interest of the child, all trial evidence must be considered. While the analysis centers on parental conduct, it also emphasizes the child’s relationship with the parent. 

1. **Desires of the Child**: At six years old, Karen's desires are not documented in the record; however, the absence of such evidence does not negate the factor's relevance. The court may consider the child's bond with a foster family, which has been positive, as she has not suffered seizures since being placed with them.

2. **Physical and Emotional Needs**: Although there is limited evidence regarding Karen's specific needs, it is acknowledged that all children have daily physical and emotional requirements. Father has not provided for Karen’s needs and was absent during the trial, leading to an inference of his ongoing inability or unwillingness to meet her needs.

3. **Danger to the Child**: While Father argues that he poses no danger to Karen, his extensive criminal history, albeit with only one non-violent conviction, raises concerns. The trial court could reasonably determine that Father’s lack of contact and effort to ensure Karen's safety, combined with his criminal background, supported the finding that terminating his parental rights was in her best interest.

Parental abilities of individuals seeking custody, home stability, and plans for the child are critical factors in custody evaluations. In this case, the Department's assessment of the father’s ability to provide a safe environment for his child was hindered by his refusal to submit to drug testing, which resulted in his inability to visit the child. Despite providing an address, the father was unreachable, and his lack of communication frustrated the Department's efforts to evaluate his suitability as a caregiver. He failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan aimed at reunification, neglecting to demonstrate stable housing or legal employment, which are essential for the child's safety and stability.

The trial court considered the father's noncompliance and the foster family's ability to meet the child's needs, concluding that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest. The father's refusal to engage with the Department and to submit to drug tests led to reasonable inferences about his potential substance abuse. His absence from trial and lack of excuses for his behavior further supported the conclusion that termination was justified. Ultimately, the evidence was found to be legally and factually sufficient to uphold the termination of the father's parental rights, enabling the child to achieve permanence through adoption. The court's decision was affirmed.