In re L.W.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF L.W., A CHILD

No. 06-23-00059-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

October 27, 2023

Submitted: October 23, 2023

On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 91297

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scott E. Stevens, Chief Justice.

A few weeks after her birth, The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed L.W.^[1] from Mother's care because of, among other things, Mother's admitted use of methamphetamine during the pregnancy and Mother's positive test for methamphetamine after she was released from the hospital. About one year later, on the petition of the Department, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to L.W. based on statutory grounds N and O and its finding that termination was in the best interests of the child.^[2] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (2). In this appeal, Mother challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of L.W. Because we find that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's best-interest finding, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background

The evidence at trial showed that the Department opened an investigation on May 6, 2022, after it received a report from Hunt Regional Medical Center that Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine when she was admitted to the hospital on April 27, 2022, and again on May 6, 2022, after she gave birth to L.W. During the investigation, Mother disclosed that she started using methamphetamine four years earlier but initially maintained that she had last used it before New Year's. Later, she admitted that she used methamphetamine during the pregnancy but asserted that she used "just enough methamphetamine[] to calm her cravings."

She also disclosed (1) that she did not receive any prenatal care with L.W., (2) that, in the past, an ex-boyfriend had put her in the hospital as a result of domestic violence, and (3) that L.W. was a child born as a result of rape. Mother also agreed to take a hair-follicle drug test, but when the Department received the results, it was concerned that Mother was actively using methamphetamine.^[3]

Over the course of the investigation, Mother told Cassandra Moreno, the Department's investigator, that she needed drug classes and rape counseling. Moreno suggested a drug assessment, drug classes, and counseling at Lakes Regional MHMR Center, as well as a program at Women in Need (WIN) that provided shelter, domestic violence classes, and counseling. Mother expressed an interest in going to Nexus for inpatient treatment, but Nexus did not accept her.

Moreno testified that the removal process was triggered when L.W was ready for discharge from the hospital around June 16 2022. She testified that removal was necessitated because of Mother's positive result for methamphetamine, her lack of stable housing, her prior history with the Department,^[4] and her failure to engage in or complete any services to address her methamphetamine use. The Department filed a petition for protection of L.W. on June 28, 2022, and the trial court entered an order for protection that same day.

Stacie Graf, a conservatorship worker for the Department, testified that L.W. was in a kinship placement in the same home as her half-brother, C.W., whom the kinship placement adopted after Mother's parental rights were terminated. She testified that, in C.W.'s case, Mother's needs were similar to her needs in this case and that Mother had court-ordered services to assist with domestic violence, victimization, counseling, parenting, and substance-abuse treatment. In this case, the Department also addressed housing, stability, income, transportation, support, and Mother's seizures and high blood pressure.

Graf met with Mother on August 1, 2022, and developed a family service plan. At the adversary hearing on that same day, Mother agreed to work the services set forth in the service plan and ordered by the trial court. The ordered services included that Mother (1) submit to a drug and alcohol assessment and follow any recommendations; (2) complete an inpatient drug treatment program and follow any recommendations; (3) submit to a psychosocial evaluation and follow any recommendations; (4) complete individual counseling, parenting classes, and domestic violence class; (5) submit to drug tests; (6) participate in Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous (NA/AA) or Celebrate Recovery at least three hours per week; (7) abstain from drug and alcohol use; and (8) complete a urine analysis and hair-follicle drug test that day. Mother completed a urine analysis and a hair-follicle test later that day.

In September 2022, Graf sent Mother for a drug test, but Mother failed to go, which resulted in the suspension of her visitation with L.W. because it was presumed that the test would have been positive. On September 13, Mother sent a text to Graf that stated she was on her way to Restored180, an inpatient treatment facility, and the facility confirmed that she had been admitted. However, Mother never responded to any of Graf's further inquiries regarding her time at Restored180. Thereafter, although Graf attempted to communicate with Mother at least once a month by telephone, text, and email, Mother never responded to her.^[5] Graf also notified Mother monthly regarding drug tests.

The evidence also showed that Mother (1) did not submit to a drug and alcohol assessment, (2) did not complete inpatient treatment, (3) never provided proof of attendance at NA/AA or Celebrate Recovery, (4) did not submit to psychosocial evaluation, and (5) did not attend individual counseling or parenting classes. Graf explained that it was important for Mother to complete parenting classes because she had four children and was not caring for any of them due to her methamphetamine use. Mother also did not attend and complete the WIN program to address domestic violence and her lack of stable housing. Mother never provided the Department with any proof of stable housing or income. Through the final permanency hearing on May 15, 2023, Mother had made no progress on her services, housing, or income. In addition, Mother did not attend the permanency hearings in December, March, or May.^[6]

Graf also testified that Mother's last visit with L.W. was on September 1, 2022, and that, since that time, Mother had not expressed that she wanted to maintain a relationship with L.W. and had sent no gifts, cards, or letters to L.W. She opined that she did not believe Mother could provide L.W. with a safe and stable environment because Mother had not demonstrated that she could provide that for herself. Graf explained that L.W. was thirteen months old and needed a safe place to eat and sleep, with no exposure to drugs, and that she needed routine medical and dental care and safe and reliable transportation, none of which Mother showed she could provide.

Graf also testified that L.W. needed timely attention to her needs, physical stimulation to aid her development and learning, and loving care so she could learn to bond. She opined that the kinship placement met all of L.W.'s needs. She also opined that, because Mother had not demonstrated that she had the skills necessary to meet L.W.'s needs, L.W. would be in emotional and physical danger if she were placed in the unsupervised care of Mother. Because Mother did not actively engage in the case, did not show a willingness to improve her circumstances so she could meet L.W.'s needs, and did not make any effort to parent L.W., Graf opined that it was in L.W.'s best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated.

Graf testified that the Department's plan for L.W. was for the kinship placement to adopt her,^[7] if Mother's parental rights were terminated. Based on her observation of L.W. in her placement, Graf opined that L.W. was bonded with her brother, C.W., and with the kinship placement and their other children. She explained that C.W. and the other children played with L.W., shared their toys with her, talked to her, and were very happy she was there. In addition, L.W. was happy and comfortable around her kinship placement and liked when they held and hugged her. Graf also testified (1) that the household was safe and stable, (2) that the family was in the same house for at least three years, (3) that they had a stable and adequate income, and (4) that the family seemed very comfortable and secure.

Kayla Jean Anderson, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer assigned to the case, testified that she attempted to communicate with Mother throughout the case but was not successful. She had no opinion regarding Mother's parenting abilities because of the lack of communication and because she was unable to observe her with L.W. Like Graf, she opined that Mother was not able to meet L.W.'s physical and emotional needs because of Mother's absence from the case. She also agreed that Mother had not demonstrated the ability to provide a safe and stable environment for L.W. She also opined that L.W. would be in emotional and physical danger in the unsupervised care of Mother since Mother was absent during the case, did not attend and pass drug tests, did not attend visitation with L.W., and did not complete her services. Anderson also concurred with Graf's assessments of L.W.'s relationship with the kinship placement and of their home environment.

After arguments of counsel, the trial court found that termination of the parental rights of Mother was in the best interest of L.W. and that the evidence supported such termination under...