 |
 |
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
28, 2002, the trial court signed a permanency hearing order, by which the court continued all previous orders issued by the court but made the following modifications: further paternity testing for S.R.H. was not necessary and so that requirement was waived, and Carlos was ordered to begin paying child support in the amount of $100 per month.
It is undisputed that Bobbie failed to participate in a paternity test. She testified that she attempted to submit to the test on two separate occasions, but was unsuccessful. On her first attempt, she was told she could not have the test done without an appointment. So, the Department scheduled an appointment for her. When she returned at the appointed time, she was told she needed proper identification, which she did not have. Once it was confirmed that Darrell Slaughter was S.R.H.'s biological father, the court modified its order eliminating the requirement that Bobbie submit to the paternity test. Curiously, the record reveals that the trial court later reinstated the order compelling Bobbie to submit to a paternity test. On July 8, 2002, the trial court granted the Department's motion for contempt and found Bobbie in contempt for failing to submit to genetic testing.
It is also undisputed that Carlos failed to pay the court-ordered child support . Carlos testified that he intended to pay the child support, but he was trying to catch up on debts accumulated while he was in the intermediate sanction facility. On appeal, he argues that he was unaware that his rights might be terminated for failure to pay child support.
In addition to these provisions, the record contains evidence demonstrating that although the Smiths complied with some of provisions in the court order, they failed to comply with all of the provisions. Krueger testified that both Bobbie and Carlos had submitted to psychological evaluations. She also testified that the Smiths were frustrated and angry "about how do I do it [comply with the family service plan]"; they did not know how to move on and work with the Department. They tried to talk to Krueger during their visits with the children, but she informed them that the time was inappropriate and encouraged them to set appointments.
Bobbie testified that when she was ordered to participate in counseling, she found a counselor and paid for the sessions herself. Bobbie's counselor, Bobbie Strickland, testified that she saw Bobbie about five or six times for fifty-minute individual counseling sessions, beginning in February 2000; they mostly discussed parenting skills. Strickland stated that they were unable to meet as regularly as she would have liked because Bobbie often set up counseling sessions and either would call to cancel her appointment or would simply not show up. Strickland testified that she recalled Bobbie suggesting that money, work, and transportation issues prevented her from making all of her appointments. She also testified that she knew Bobbie had a new job and that she could not miss work in order to attend counseling. She characterized Bobbie as fair when asked how successful Bobbie had been in gaining the necessary skills. Because they were unable to meet consistently, however, Strickland did not believe that Bobbie had sufficiently improved on her parenting skills to send her children home.
As for parenting skills classes, Bobbie testified that she enrolled in two separate parenting classes. She claimed to have attended parenting classes at Buckner Ranch for about six weeks, and then went to parenting classes at Burnet Child Protective Services offices between two and four times. She also enrolled in anger management classes but was kicked out when she expressed an opinion that a
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.
|
|