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


TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00066-CV M. V., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 18-0015-CPSC1, THE HONORABLE BRANDY HALLFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION M.V. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parent-child relationship with his children J.V. and S.V.1 After a bench trial, the trial court found that M.V. had committed conduct that satisfied the requirements for termination of parental rights found in paragraphs (D), (E), and (O) of Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). In addition, the trial court found that termination of M.V.’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND On February 5, 2018, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) received allegations that the porch of the children’s home appeared to be 1 We use initials to protect the privacy of those involved in this case. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d). surrounded by blankets and it appeared to be used for sleeping. The next day, a Department investigator spoke to the principal of the school attended by the older children—I.G.,2 then eight years old, and J.V., then six years old. The principal reported that she was concerned because the boys had missed several days of school and were often tardy. During its investigation, the Department found that the porch contained alcohol bottles and had the odor of marihuana. I.G. and J.V. made outcries of daily marihuana use by C.S. and C.S.’s sister during which time the boys and their eight-month-old sister, S.V., were left unattended inside. Both boys referred to “weed,” and I.G. described his mother and aunt using a striped bong, which he described and drew a picture of. J.V. described where his mother kept the marihuana and described how to use a pipe to smoke it. Both boys stated that their father, M.V., smoked cigarettes but did not smoke marihuana. The Department removed the children from C.S. and M.V.’s care and, at the time of trial, the children were in foster care.3 C.S. has a history of involvement with the Department resulting in the termination of her parental rights to her then ten-month-old child in 2008. At the time of trial, M.V. was being detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a facility in Pearsall, Texas.4 At trial, C.S. testified that she had not completed her service plan and that she believed termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interest. After a bench trial, the trial court issued an order terminating each parent’s parental rights and awarding the Department sole managing conservatorship. The trial court terminated M.V.’s parental rights on three grounds—section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) of the Texas Family Code—in addition to 2 I.G., J.V., and S.V. have the same mother, C.S., but M.V. is not ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals