 |
 |
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
pet.), disapproved on other grounds, In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002).
Harris testified that during her first visit to the Smith home, she observed that the inside of the house was filthy; the kitchen was infested with roaches and dirty dishes, and the refrigerator was not working; there were clothes all over the living room; the front steps to the house were unstable and missing boards; the yard was strewn with trash; and windows were broken. During her two subsequent visits, Harris did not observe any signs of improvement of the conditions. On February 22, the day that the children were removed from the home, Harris's description of the safety hazards in the home included holes in the floor, exposed wiring, holes in the bathroom, cigarette butts on the floor, clothes on the floor, trash on the floor, broken glass, the oven was open to heat the home, and the home had no heat otherwise. She also mentioned as safety concerns the proximity of the home to the highway and the fact that the door on the trailer did not have a lock.
The children's guardian ad litem, Kay McCorquodale, also testified that when she visited the Smith home in August 2001, the home "was a wreck" and " ot suitable for children to live in." She observed a broken window, garbage, clothes, and torn up furniture strewn around the house, and the bathroom was "torn up." Outside, she saw an old refrigerator, an old water heater, an old washing machine, and various junk. She testified that on her next visit, she observed that many of the repairs had been made and the inside of the house was all right; however, the porch needed to be finished and the junk in the yard needed to be cleaned out. She had not visited the Smiths' current dwelling.
Ellie Krueger testified that after she took over the case, she visited the Smith home during the summer of 2001. Carlos was incarcerated at the time. She saw that improvements had been made, but more were still needed. On her second visit, she saw more improvements had been made. Specifically, a carpenter had built a porch onto the front of the home, and "made it really look safe ecause if a child would come out the front door of the manufactured home, they could, you know, stay right there instead of going out into the yard." She still expressed concern with the absence of screens on the windows and the "basic yard, the children didn't need to be running around in because of hazards out there." Also, there was one spot on the kitchen floor that sank when someone stepped on it. Although it appeared that someone had tried to repair it, it still sank.
Krueger testified that she never saw any roaches in the home. She was still concerned about some wires hanging from the wall and the risk they might pose for young children. When Krueger was asked what still needed to be done to make the repairs to the Smith home complete, she replied that the house needed a health and fire inspection. Krueger's last inspection of the Smith home took place four months before a December 2001 permanency hearing, and she did not know what repairs had been made since that time. When asked if the Smiths had completed the goal of repairing their home, Krueger responded " s much as they could within means." Krueger had not inspected the Smiths' current home, which is a state-subsidized apartment.
The Smiths do not dispute on appeal that their home was filthy and unkept at the time of the children's removal. Bobbie Smith testified that she tried to combat the pest problem by using a "bomb," bug spray, and roach motels. She also testified that she was generally tired from having just had a baby and a tubal ligation. Bobbie testified that sometime in February, she moved in with her mo
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.
|
|