Aguilar v. Soliz

Samantha Soleil Aguilar, Appellant v. Carrington Edvin Soliz, Appellee

NO. 03-20-00121-CV

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

July 2, 2021

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-19-007140, THE HONORABLE DUSTIN M. HOWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Samantha Soleil Aguilar challenges the portion of the trial court's order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that denied her request to terminate Carrington Edvin Soliz's parental rights to their child, C.A. In one issue, Aguilar contends that the evidence admitted at trial overwhelmingly established a statutory ground for termination of Soliz's parental rights and that termination of those rights is in C.A.'s best interest and, therefore, the evidence was factually insufficient to support the denial of termination. We will affirm.

BACKGROUND

Aguilar and Soliz met in middle school and started dating while they were in high school. During her first year of college, Aguilar became pregnant with their child, C.A., who was born in September 2007 and was twelve years old at the time of trial. Before Aguilar became pregnant, Soliz was not employed but made money selling marijuana. When Aguilar learned she was pregnant, she asked Soliz to stop selling marijuana and he complied. Aguilar testified that Soliz's mother was upset at the loss of income to the family from marijuana sales and began selling marijuana herself. Aguilar stated that although Soliz only smoked marijuana and drank alcohol before her pregnancy, during her pregnancy he started using other drugs. Aguilar recounted that when she went to the hospital to deliver C.A., Soliz's mother insisted on being present in the delivery room and was very angry when Aguilar said she only wanted Soliz in the room with her. Soliz's mother and nieces were ultimately escorted out of the delivery wing and Aguilar decided to have only her mother in the delivery room with her because she believed that Soliz was upset that Aguilar had prevented his mother from being in the room. Aguilar testified that the delivery was emotionally difficult because of the situation with Soliz and his mother and that shortly after she delivered C.A., she ended her relationship with Soliz. Aguilar stated that she tried to make the relationship work for C.A.'s sake but that it "just didn't work."

Aguilar testified that she encouraged C.A. to have a relationship with Soliz and that she wanted him to know his father and his father's family. Although she was concerned about the condition of the Soliz family home, she allowed C.A. to spend weekends there with his father. Aguilar testified that the Soliz family home was old and not well maintained and that there were fleas and mosquitos present. Aguilar stated that C.A. returned from some visits with lice and flea bites. Aguilar also recounted that C.A. had told her that Soliz had given him beer to drink when he was six or seven years old. Aguilar testified that she was concerned about what she described as the Soliz "family dynamics." Aguilar stated that Soliz's father had divorced Soliz's mother so that he could marry his stepdaughter. Later, while married to Soliz's father, the stepdaughter started an extra-marital affair with her son-in-law, the husband of her daughter.When Soliz's father learned of the affair sometime in 2013 or 2014, he shot and killed the son-in-law. Soliz's father attempted to flee after committing the murder but was apprehended and ultimately sentenced to prison for the murder. Aguilar testified that she believed that Soliz was charged with helping his father flee and was sentenced to several months' imprisonment. After these events occurred, Aguilar sought sole managing conservatorship of C.A. and moved C.A. from public to private school because teachers were warning her that C.A. could "be just like his dad one day." Aguilar stated that she did not want C.A. to be "compared" with Soliz and his family at school. From that time on, C.A. did not spend nights with Soliz and saw him only every other weekend.

Aguilar testified that in 2016 she told Soliz that he needed to provide C.A. with financial assistance and to "step up" as a father. Aguilar also had requested that Soliz and his family not tell C.A. that his grandfather had been convicted of murder. Despite this request, when C.A. asked her, Soliz's mother told C.A. where his grandfather was. Aguilar stated that C.A. was very upset and angry with her for not telling him about his grandfather and wanted to know the details of the murder, which Aguilar declined to provide. Aguilar was concerned that C.A. was deeply negatively impacted by hearing from his grandmother that his grandfather had committed a murder. Aguilar testified that in 2016 Soliz accused her of not wanting C.A. to be around his paternal family and then "stopped coming around." Soliz did not see C.A. from 2016 until October 2018 when he came to Aguilar's parents' house, where Aguilar and C.A. were living, and asked to see C.A. Aguilar testified that she told C.A., who was then eleven years old, that it was his decision whether he wanted to see his father and that C.A. ran into a closet and would not come out. Aguilar testified that Soliz provided only intermittent financial support and had not sought access to C.A. since 2018.

Cynthia Gonzalez, the court-appointed guardian ad litem, testified that she supported termination of Soliz's parental rights to C.A. Gonzalez conducted an investigation that included meeting with Aguilar, Soliz, C.A., and C.A.'s maternal grandparents and aunt. Gonzalez spoke with C.A.'s paternal grandparents, reviewed CPS and police records, and conducted home visits of both homes. Gonzales testified that she was concerned about Soliz's parenting ability and his ability to financially support C.A. Gonzales stated that Soliz had made some attempts to see C.A. but that she was concerned because he had not been involved in C.A.'s life since 2016. Gonzalez expressed concern about whether the Soliz family home was a good environment for a child. She also noted that Soliz's family members had a "CPS history" and "extensive CPS involvement." During trial, the court stated that it considered Gonzalez's testimony to be conclusory and asked her to explain in more detail why she believed termination of Soliz's parental rights was warranted. Gonzalez stated that C.A. is afraid of having a relationship with his father, that he "does not desire a relationship with his father," and that he is "fearful" of his father. Gonzalez testified that she believed that the Soliz family environment would be emotionally harmful to C.A. and that she was worried about the possible negative impact of C.A. being around the Soliz family. She also stated that Soliz had made little effort to see C.A., had not sought assistance from the Domestic Relations Office, had not provided any explanation for his failure to pay child support, and does not appear to be invested in C.A.'s future. Gonzalez testified that she believes Soliz is more motivated by his feeling about Aguilar than by a desire to have a relationship with his son. Gonzalez stated that C.A. is doing "really well now" and that she would hate to put him in a situation that would set him back. Gonzalez testified that, by contrast, Aguilar and C.A.'s maternal grandparents are "invested in C.A.'s future."

Soliz testified that, from the beginning, he felt that there was no way he would be able to maintain a relationship with C.A. Soliz stated that he and Aguilar were from "two sides of the tracks, literally," and that because he was a "trailer park kid" and she was a "two-story house girl" they were "never supposed to be together." Soliz testified that nothing his family had done for C.A. was "good enough" for Aguilar. Soliz recounted that when he made C.A. a Batman costume for Halloween, which he said that C.A. loved, Aguilar criticized him and told him to let her know in the future if he did not have enough money to buy C.A. a costume. Soliz testified that Aguilar's family treated him like an outsider, favored Aguilar's current boyfriend over him, and "kicked [Soliz] to the curb." Soliz stated that if it were Aguilar's decision, he would never be able to see his son. Soliz testified that he believes that Aguilar is a great mother and that he has no anger toward her or her family, whom he has known since he was a child and views as family. Soliz explained that he attempted to arrange to see C.A. by sending Aguilar text message requests but that the two do not have a "very civil relationship." Soliz testified that he would have loved to have spent time with C.A. but did not think he would be allowed to do so. Soliz stated that although his mother has a history with CPS, he does not. Soliz stated that Aguilar has raised C.A. on her own with her family's help by choice. Soliz acknowledged that he did not take legal action to gain access to C.A. and that his child support payments in 2015 and 2016 were sporadic but questioned whether that was a sufficient reason to terminate his parental rights to C.A.

After both sides rested, the court stated that it believed it would be in C.A.'s best interest to have a meaningful relationship with Soliz if that could be accomplished in a way that would mitigate the guardian ad litem's concerns. Several days after trial, the court sent the parties a letter stating that after considering the arguments and evidence presented, he woulddeny Aguilar's request to terminate Soliz's parental rights but grant her request to be named C.A.'s sole managing conservator. The court stated that it intended to craft a visitation plan for Soliz that would be supervised, would not take place at the Soliz family home, and would minimize any emotional distress that C.A. might experience when reintroducing Soliz into his life. The court suggested supervised, therapeutic visitation at a court-approved facility and asked the parties and the guardian ad litem to...