 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services9/11/2003
the county jail, but she was given credit for time served; she was also ordered to complete outpatient treatment. Okolo was not aware of what, if anything, happened with the hindering apprehension and making a false report to a peace officer allegations. Bobbie testified that she was found not guilty on those charges.
Darrell Slaughter testified about the day that Bobbie showed up on his doorstep with S.R.H. in 1997. She showed up one evening in either late summer or early fall and told Darrell that S.R.H. was his daughter, that she could not take care of her right then, and that Darrell needed to do so. Darrell testified that Bobbie was "without a doubt messed up on drugs, wired to the gills." Bobbie wrote a note giving Darrell and his wife temporary custody of S.R.H. At the time, S.R.H. was, according to Darrell, "plumb full of head lice and just as filthy as could be." Darrell and his wife took care of S.R.H. and enrolled her in school; she lived with them for about four months. Then, one night, Bobbie showed up at Darrell's doorstep at about 3:00 a.m., asking to see S.R.H. According to Darrell, Bobbie had fresh track marks on her neck and was " ound up like a nine-day clock." Bobbie wanted to take S.R.H., but Darrell would not let her. The next day, S.R.H. did not return home from school. Bobbie testified that she left S.R.H. with Darrell Slaughter because Carlos was incarcerated and she "couldn't handle things right then."
Bobbie also testified that she has done drugs since the age of eleven. She stated that she no longer uses drugs and does not plan to start using them again. According to Bobbie, she was never an addict, never used drugs around her children or in the home, and the use of drugs never affected her parenting abilities, but she did once leave her family and used drugs, entrusting the children to Carlos. She said that if her children were returned to her, she would commit herself to a drug treatment facility.
Gaylene Simpson, Carlos's probation officer, also testified. According to Simpson, Carlos was placed on probation for possession of a controlled substance and delivery of marihuana. Simpson testified that in early 1996, Carlos tested positive on a urinalysis, causing his probation officer to require weekly reporting. He again tested positive in the summer of 1996. He had a few more positive urinalysis test results in the fall and winter of 1996, causing Simpson to file a motion to revoke. That is when Carlos agreed to a modification of his probation, and he was ordered to SAFPF in February 1997. After he was released from SAFPF, Carlos had two more positive urinalysis tests, and a couple of negative ones. As a result, Simpson filed another motion to revoke, and Carlos agreed to a modification of his probation, by which he was ordered to the intermediate sanction facility. Carlos was transferred to the intermediate sanction facility in February 2001, and was to stay there for a year. But in October 2001, after his children were removed, Carlos petitioned for an early release, and the court granted it. Since his release, he has had no more dirty urinalysis tests.
In sum, evidence of Bobbie's failure to supervise her children or tend to their medical needs does not alone rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence sufficient to establish a voluntary course of conduct that endangers the physical and emotional health of the children. Bobbie sought counseling for S.R.H. when she was sexually assaulted, and she sought the necessary treatment for C.R.S. when she discovered that the baby needed to have her breathing monitored. Although the two older girls were often plagued with lice, Bobbie attempted to treat the problem. Indeed, if she had not, the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|