 |
 |
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
ngered the instructor. Krueger, however, testified that although Bobbie did try to attend parenting classes at Buckner Ranch, she did not complete the session. According to Krueger, Buckner Ranch had a policy that if a parent missed one class, she could not finish the session. Bobbie missed a class and was not allowed to finish the session. Krueger testified that Bobbie had asked her to set up the parenting classes again, but it seems Bobbie did not complete them.
Bobbie testified that initially she was told the Department did not have the funds to pay for her drug assessment or urinalysis tests, and she would have to pay for them herself. Krueger later testified that Bobbie eventually submitted to a drug assessment as ordered, but did not complete a drug treatment program.
Carlos Smith does not dispute that he has not participated in individual counseling. He went to one counseling session, but was incarcerated and could not attend the counseling sessions Krueger had set up for him. He, however, testified that he completed everything else that was included in the Department's family service plan. He took parenting classes while he was in SAFPF and anger management classes while in the intermediate sanction facility, as well as some other classes such as life skills and job readiness. Although he took the parenting class while he was in SAFPF, which was before he was ordered to, Carlos testified that he did not think it made any difference.
Krueger, on the other hand, testified that the parenting class that Carlos claims to have completed was taken too long ago, back in 1997 or 1998. And, Krueger was not certain that the class included all of the things that a parenting class taught by Child Protective Services would have included. She also requested that Carlos repeat some of the classes he had taken while in the intermediate sanction facility, explaining that "it would not harm him in any way to repeat them if that is what had to be done." She complained that although she initiated two counseling sessions for Carlos, he attended only one. In addition, he failed to inform her when Bobbie was incarcerated.
And he never completed a drug assessment, although Krueger was not aware if he had completed one as part of his probation. Nevertheless, when asked during the December permanency hearing by the attorney representing the Department, "What do you think specifically Mr. Smith has done that would justify termination," Krueger answered, "I cannot say that he has done anything to terminate." Later during that hearing, when asked to provide a letter grade to rate Carlos's compliance with the family service plan, Krueger answered, "B plus."
In sum, the evidence establishes that Bobbie failed to comply with virtually all of the provisions in the trial court's order. As for Carlos, the evidence is not as compelling. Carlos completed several classes, including anger management classes. He attempted to obtain his GED, but was unsuccessful. While he attended only one counseling session, Krueger had set up only two appointments. He obtained suitable housing and submitted to urinalysis tests through his probation officer. He has consistently remained employed, although he changes jobs frequently. While he has not satisfied his child support obligations, he testified that he is attempting to catch up on his financial obligations. The record reveals that Carlos has at least made progress in satisfying all of the provisions included in the trial court's order. Indeed, Krueger herself admitted in December 2001 that he was doing well.
Because we have already concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the allegation that Bobbie and Carlos engaged in
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.
|
|