Detton v. Cedillo (In re L.J.L.C.)

1

IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.L.C., A CHILD;

GLORIA RAIN DETTON, APPELLANT v. QUANAH ARTURO CEDILLO, APPELLEE

Nos. 07-21-00061-CV, 07-21-00062-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo

August 11, 2022

On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 90,726-D-FM, 94,718-D-FM, Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon, Presiding

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Judy C. Parker, Justice

Appellant Gloria Rain Detton, appeals from two orders issued after a bench trial in consolidated suits seeking modification of the parent-child relationship and a Chapter 7A protective order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Detton, the mother of the child the subject of the suits, contends that the trial court erred by denying her application for a protective order in favor of L.J.L.C. and against appellee, Quanah Arturo Cedillo, the father of L.J.L.C.^[1] Then, in her appeal of the modification order, Detton raises six issues. In her first two issues Detton asserts the trial court erred by failing to file additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and refusing to find there was a history or pattern of abuse. In her next four issues, Detton asserts the trial court abused its discretion in appointing Cedillo as a possessory conservator, by issuing a possession order based solely on Cedillo's agreement, by failing to issue an order of nondisclosure of identifying information, and in failing to grant a name change for L.J.L.C. Cedillo did not file a brief in these appeals. We affirm the trial court's modification order and reverse the denial of the protective order and remand that issue to the trial court.

Background

Detton and Cedillo are the parents of L.J.L.C., who was born in March of 2013. On September 29, 2017, the parties and the Office of Attorney General entered into a child support review order. In this order, the parents were named joint managing conservators, Detton was given the right to designate L.J.L.C.'s residence, Cedillo was ordered to pay child support and cash medical support, and the parents were awarded alternating weeks of possession of L.J.L.C.

On February 2, 2018, L.J.L.C. made an outcry of sexual abuse by Cedillo. As a result, a criminal complaint was filed alleging that Cedillo sexually assaulted L.J.L.C. on January 24, 2018. On April 4, 2018, Cedillo bonded out of jail on conditions that included no contact with L.J.L.C. or any child under seventeen years of age. Cedillo was later indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by sexual contact.^[2]

On August 28, 2020, Detton filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship and sought a Chapter 7A protective order. Detton's application for a protective order requested protection for herself, L.J.L.C., and two other children in Detton's household. The application alleged that Cedillo "committed acts that were intended by [Cedillo] to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or were threats that reasonably placed [a]pplicant or a protected child in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault" and the acts of abuse that constitute family violence include "sexual conduct that was harmful to the mental, emotional, or physical welfare of a protected child under [s]ection 22.021 and [s]ection 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code." The application requested permanent protective orders prohibiting Cedillo from communicating with or directing conduct toward a protected person, and prohibiting him from going near a residence, school, and other specified locations of a protected person. The petition for modification sought modification of child support, conservatorship, and possession and access; a name change; and a request for permanent injunction.

The hearing on the application for protective order and the petition to modify were held on November 2, 2020. Prior to the court receiving any evidence, Cedillo's counsel announced his agreement to the following relief requested by Detton's petition to modify: removal as a joint managing conservator and appointment of Detton as sole managing conservator; no contact or no visitation with L.J.L.C.; and permanent injunctive language.^[3]No agreement was reached on the protective order, nondisclosure of contact information, or surname change for the child.

Trial testimony showed that approximately a month before L.J.L.C.'s fifth birthday, Detton attempted to wake L.J.L.C. for preschool by splashing "a little bit of water on her." L.J.L.C. responded by saying, "Don't pee on me; don't pee on me." Detton told her it was time to get up. As L.J.L.C. was sitting on her bed, she told Detton, "Sometimes my daddy makes me lick his butt to make the lotion come out." L.J.L.C. further stated, "[S]ometimes he does it on [my] hands and sometimes he does it on [my] feet." Detton reported the child's statements to law enforcement and L.J.L.C. was interviewed at the Bridge Children's Advocacy Center. The Bridge referred L.J.L.C. to counseling at Jennings & Associates Counseling Services.^[4] The Department of Family and Protective Services conducted an investigation and instituted a safety plan that prohibited Cedillo from having contact with L.J.L.C. According to Detton, after L.J.L.C. was interviewed, she was "very aggressive" and did not want to be around people. When L.J.L.C. started kindergarten, Detton was called several times because L.J.L.C. was behaving inappropriately. L.J.L.C. has experienced bad dreams of "her dad and what had happened."

L.J.L.C. made additional statements regarding Cedillo's sexual abuse to Bobbi Britto. Britto, a licensed professional counselor, testified as an expert in the field of cognitive behavioral therapy for trauma victims. Over the course of her therapy, L.J.L.C. disclosed to Britto that she "was not safe at her dad's, her daddy. She said he was bad and now he's in jail." L.J.L.C. told Britto, "[Cedillo] makes me lick his pee pee. He does it all the time. He locks the door. I tell him I don't want to, but he says if I don't, I can't do whatever I want. I was licking his pee pee, and it was disgusting." Britto testified that L.J.L.C. stated that Cedillo warned her not to tell anyone about what he was doing to her, even threatening to kill L.J.L.C.'s dogs if she told. L.J.L.C. did not quantify how often the sexual abuse happened, "but she indicated it was pretty regular." According to Britto, L.J.L.C. has been consistent in this outcry throughout her therapy.

Britto further testified that L.J.L.C. experienced behaviors associated with child sexual abuse victims: L.J.L.C. was aggressive at school; she exhibited separation anxiety and did not want to leave her mother's care or stay with anyone else; she did not want to go to school; she had been inappropriately exploring and touching other children in her family; and she frequently talked about having pictures in her head from what "Daddy did." According to Britto, L.J.L.C. has experienced a range of feelings over the past couple of years: scared, angry, mad, disgusted, and sad. Britto diagnosed L.J.L.C. with post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from her allegations of sexual abuse. However, L.J.L.C. has shown "a lot of improvement in the last year."

On cross-examination, Britto agreed with Cedillo's counsel that there are instances in which a parent coaches a child to make false outcries, and "there [are] no hard-and-fast procedures to objectively determine whether or not a child has been abused." She answered "possibly" to a question inquiring if there is a chance that L.J.L.C. could have a false memory, agreed that "sometimes" children exaggerate, but maintained she had not seen any "red flags" that L.J.L.C. had been coached.

In his testimony,^[5] Cedillo expressed his concern about the hearing proceeding before the resolution of the criminal charges, stating, "This is my life here." Cedillo pleaded not guilty to the charges and has been waiting for his day in court for almost three years. During that time, Cedillo completed counseling as requested during the CPS investigation. He has not visited with L.J.L.C. or had any contact with her since the end of January of 2018. Cedillo testified a protective order is not necessary because "for three years now, I've been on bond which already prevents me from being anywhere near [Detton] or [L.J.L.C.] . . . [a]nd I've followed it to the T, and I plan on continuing doing that." Cedillo testified that he has not been accused of violating any of the conditions of his bond, and he has never been convicted of any assaultive crimes. Cedillo denied that he posed a risk to L.J.L.C.'s or Detton's safety. He agreed that while the criminal case is pending, Detton be awarded sole managing conservatorship of L.J.L.C. and that he would not exercise any visitation or make any contact with her.

After the agreed order in September of 2017, Cedillo testified that he "was speaking [his] mind more often" because "[Detton] was not able to keep [L.J.L.C.]" from him. This created conflict between him and Detton. In mid-January of 2018, Cedillo claimed L.J.L.C. as an exemption when he filed his tax return and it caused an argument between him and Detton. Within days, the sexual abuse allegations were made. Cedillo confirmed there were no civil actions filed against him by Detton after the allegations were made until the present cases were filed on August 28, 2020.

The trial court granted the modification in part and denied the protective order.^[6]The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Detton timely filed her appeal in both causes.

Protective Order

We first consider the trial court's denial of the protective order. Detton...