F. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-21-00215-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 19, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

F.M. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughters A.M. and C.M. following a bench trial. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the case in July 2020 after receiving allegations of the children's mother using morphine and procuring marijuana for A.M. The Department's affidavit highlighted concerns about both parents' drug use and unstable living conditions, with relatives alleging methamphetamine use by the parents and describing dangerous environments for the children. The mother faced multiple drug-related charges, while the father's criminal history included possession of methamphetamine, theft, and assault against the mother.

Testimony revealed a pattern of domestic violence; an officer recounted a December 2019 incident where Father was accused of physically assaulting Mother during a verbal dispute at a motel. Mother displayed visible injuries, and her account of events contradicted Father's claim that she was the aggressor. Additionally, both parents were arrested in September 2019 for attempting to steal merchandise from Walmart, with Father found in possession of methamphetamine. The court ultimately affirmed the decision to terminate Father's parental rights based on the presented evidence.

Kalyn Noyes, a Department caseworker, testified about the case involving Mother and Father, who were required to undergo hair-follicle drug testing at the start of the case. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines and cocaine, while Father did not complete his test due to an insufficient hair sample and subsequently failed to retake it. Following Mother’s positive results, their children were removed from their care, and both parents were mandated to complete services, including an intensive outpatient substance abuse program, which neither completed. Father also failed to participate in a nail drug screen and did not comply with various aspects of his Family Service Plan, such as drug evaluations, therapy, parenting classes, and a batterer’s intervention program. 

Mother completed a psychological evaluation, revealing a history of domestic issues with Father, who she stated became abusive following his substance use. Noyes noted that visits between the parents and children were suspended in January 2021 due to the parents’ lack of engagement with the Department's requirements. The children have since been placed in a foster home since October 2020, where they have shown significant improvement, becoming more communicative and expressing a desire to be adopted by their foster parents, stating that returning to their biological parents would make them feel like strangers.

Noyes expressed concern for the children's safety if returned to their parents due to ongoing drug use, potential for arrest, and a history of domestic violence. Terri Hamilton, the children’s guardian ad litem, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the stability and comfort the children have found in their current living situation, which contrasts sharply with their previous environment. Both children indicated they do not want to return to their parents, and Hamilton supported the termination of parental rights as being in the children's best interest, citing their safety and desire for a normal life.

John McGuire, the foster father, testified that he and his wife were eager to adopt the children, who were adjusting well to their new environment. He indicated that the children also expressed a desire to be adopted. The district court subsequently ruled that terminating the parental rights of both the mother and father was in the best interests of the children, citing that the parents knowingly endangered the children's physical and emotional well-being and failed to address substance abuse issues. The court also noted the parents had constructively abandoned the children, who had been in temporary conservatorship for over six months. Following this ruling, the father appealed, and his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous and without merit. The counsel's brief complied with Anders requirements by evaluating the record and showing no arguable grounds for appeal. The counsel informed the father of his rights regarding the appellate record and the option to file a pro se brief, but no such brief was submitted. The court conducted a thorough review of the record alongside the Anders brief and found no issues to support the appeal, confirming the district court's endangerment findings. The court affirmed the termination order and denied the counsel's motion to withdraw. Furthermore, it noted the right to counsel extends through all proceedings, including potential petitions for review to the Texas Supreme Court.