In the Interest of E.T., A.T., and E.T., Children v. the State of Texas

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 10:20 AM In re CD, Minor. No. 371098 Crawford Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 21-004622-NA Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-mother appeals by right the order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, CD, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to parent’s home). In a scant, two-paragraph argument on appeal, respondent-mother asserts only that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of a separate personal protection order (PPO) case between herself and CD’s father, who was not a respondent in this matter, and that there was no need to terminate her parental rights because she was jailed for violating the PPO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case was commenced approximately a month after respondent-mother’s home was raided by a police drug taskforce following three controlled purchases of prescription drugs from respondent-mother, during which the police found and confiscated a dangerous butane-based THC extraction lab from her garage. The minor child, CD, was placed in the care of his father in an ex parte custody order entered in a custody case between the father and respondent-mother. The father was simultaneously granted a PPO against respondent-mother. The same judge presided over this case, the custody case, and the PPO proceedings.1 The trial court took judicial notice of the PPO proceedings in a contempt hearing in this case without objection by respondent-mother’s 1 The trial court also issued another PPO against respondent-mother while this case was pending. -1- attorney. Respondent-mother also was charged criminally, and a different judge presided over her criminal cases. Almost three years after the raid and more than two years after the order of adjudication, the trial court issued a lengthy written opinion that summarized the voluminous testimony in this case. The trial court found that respondent-mother’s noncompliance with petitioner, continued impulsivity and history of defiance, and lack of benefit from services showed that CD would likely be harmed if returned to her care. The trial court then found that respondent-mother’s dishonesty, lack of insight, lack of accountability, and questionable judgment in recently marrying a felon showed that termination was in CD’s best interests. The trial court noted that it had no assurance that CD would be kept safe through custody orders in the parallel custody proceeding because respondent-mother’s conduct throughout this case and as reflected in the PPO case showed that she could not be trusted to follow any such orders. II. PRESERVATION OF ISSUES A respondent must object in the trial court to the trial court’s use of evidence. In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). Respondent-mother expressly declined to do so when the trial court directly asked if she had any objection to the trial court taking judicial notice of the PPO matters at a contempt hearing in this case. Waiver does not require any particular language, but it “must be explicit, voluntary, and made in good faith.” In re MJC Minor, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 365616); slip op at 3. A party waives an issue by expressly declining a trial court’s invitation to object to a matter. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214-215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000); People v McDonald, 293 Mich App 292, 295; 811 NW2d 507 (2011). If an issue is waived, there is no right to appeal. People v Flores, 346 Mich App 602, 608; 13 NW3d 668 (2023). However, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution,” we will treat this issue “as merely forfeited rather than affirmatively waived.” See Flores, 346 Mich App at 608-609. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW An unpreserved error in a termination-of-parental-rights case is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 29 & n 13; 934 NW2d 610 (2019). Under that standard, a clear or obvious error must have occurred, the error must have affected the outcome of the

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-24-00318-CV Randell Donell Canady, Appellant v. Donna Marie Canady, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 22-1521-FC3, THE HONORABLE DOUG ARNOLD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Randell Donell Canady, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order of Enforcement of Property Division (Order) finding that he had violated the agreed divorce decree that ended his marriage to Donna Marie Canady. 1 In the Order, the trial court found that Randell had failed to comply with a provision in the decree requiring him to either refinance the mortgage on the parties’ marital home (which had been awarded to him) or sell the home. The Order mandated that Randell list the property for sale with a licensed realtor by a specified date and cooperate with the realtor to “achieve a speedy sale.” For the following reasons, we affirm the Order. The trial court signed the agreed divorce decree on September 27, 2023. Among its provisions, the decree awarded the parties’ marital residence to Randell and required him to 1 Because the parties share the same surname, for clarity we refer to them by their first names. “assume the promissory note secured by the property and pay it timely, no later than fifteen (15) days after the due date.” It further required him to, within 180 days of the decree’s entry, “refinance the mortgage note” on the property. If he failed to “refinance the mortgage removing DONNA MARIE CANADY’s name from the note,” the decree required him to sell the residence “on the first day following” the expiration of said 180 days. 2 In February 2024, Donna filed a Petition for Enforcement of Property Division by Contempt, alleging that Randell was in contempt of the decree for failing to timely refinance the mortgage note. At the hearing on Donna’s petition, Donna’s attorney represented that they were no longer seeking a contempt judgment—they were asking only that Randell be required to sell the home—and thus the court stated that Randell was “not entitled to counsel” and could go forward pro se if he was prepared to do so, to which Randell responded affirmatively. The trial court asked Randell in open court whether he had refinanced or sold the home within 180 days of the decree, referring to those two choices to which he was ordered in the decree as “Option A or B,” respectively. Randell responded that he “applied for the refinance,” was approved for it, but that the “VA agent called” him and told him that he did not have to refinance the loan but could “assume the loan entirely” instead. The trial court characterized the VA agent’s suggestion as “Option C” and informed Randell that the decree did not permit a third party to “alleviate[] that responsibility for [Option] A or B.” The trial court informed Randell that Donna was now asking for Option B (that Randell sell the home), and Randell replied, “Sir, I accept B.” The trial court asked whether Randell could have the home ready to list by June 1, 2024, and whether that proposal would work for him, and he replied, 2 The decree alternatively required Randell to sell the home if, prior to timely refinancing, he “falls behind in the timely payment of the mortgage note secured by the property for a period of fifteen (15) days or more.” 2 “Yes, Your Honor.” The trial court then granted Donna’s enforcement petition, ordered Randell to sell the home by June 1, 2024, and requested that Donna’s counsel prepare an order accordingly, which it later signed. On appeal, Randell complains that the decree’s use of the term “refinance” is ambiguous and needs clarification, as he and Donna believe it means different things as to the method used to refinance the loan on the home. He contends that he may “assume” the loan as the “VA agent” suggested—which he argues would “remove” Donna’s name from the mortgage note—while Donna maintains (and the trial court determined) that a loan assumption is not the same thing as a refinance, which term the decree expressly employed. Randall prays that this Court reverse the Order requiring him to sell the home and either replace the term “refinance” with “language that include[s] the Assumption refinance through the VA-guaranteed loan program” or remand the case to the trial court with instructions that it so revise the decree. Randell’s appellate complaint fails for two reasons. First, Randell conceded in open court that he had neither refinanced the home nor sold it as required in the decree. He then agreed

No. 538 June 11, 2025 299 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON D. R. H., Petitioner-Appellant, v. SETH THOMAS HOLBROOK, Respondent-Respondent. Yamhill County Circuit Court 22SK02713; A182668 Cynthia Kaufman Noble, Judge. Submitted February 4, 2025. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. 300 D. R. H. v. Holbrook JOYCE, J. Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying her petition for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against respondent, her ex-husband.1 She contends that the trial court erred in finding that her evidence did not satisfy the requirements for an SPO. On appeal, we review “the evi- dence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition.” H. L. P. v. Jones, 309 Or App 108, 109, 481 P3d 415 (2021). Doing so, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the SPO, where it was not persuaded by petitioner’s evidence, regardless of whether that evidence would have supported an SPO had the court found the facts differently. Accordingly, we affirm. Petitioner and respondent were married for sev- eral years, and they had two children. Petitioner sought an SPO against respondent after a series of incidents in which respondent came to her home, engaged in conversation with her, and, on at least two occasions, would not leave when told. Petitioner testified that respondent’s visits caused her “alarm” and made her feel “very unsafe” because she “didn’t know what he was going to do next.” Petitioner also testi- fied that when she and respondent were married, he was “emotionally” and “psychologically” abusive and displayed “controlling behaviors, possessiveness, [and] erratic anger.” For example, on several occasions when respondent had become angry while driving her and their son, respondent had accelerated to unsafe speeds and had refused to relin- quish control of the vehicle. Although petitioner testified that respondent was never physically abusive toward her, she stated that respondent was physically abusive toward their son. According to petitioner, respondent had been “dis- proportionate with his discipline” and that “there was actu- ally a time where [their son] did get bruised from spanking.” After hearing the evidence, the trial court entered a judgment denying the SPO. In its letter opinion, the court stated that “based on [its] credibility and demeanor find- ings, [it had] a number of concerns about many aspects of the testimony and the record made in this case.” The court 1 Respondent does not appear on appeal. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 299 (2025) 301 did not specify, beyond that statement, what credibility or demeanor findings it had made. Ultimately, the court con- cluded that “[p]etitioner has failed to meet the burden to satisfy the elements for the continuance of the Stalking Protective Order.” Petitioner appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that she failed to meet her burden to sat- isfy the requirements for an SPO. In particular, petitioner contends that the record regarding respondent’s visits to her home was sufficient to establish that he made two unwanted contacts that subjectively alarmed her and that her alarm was objectively reasonable. See ORS 30.866(1)(a) - (c) (to obtain an SPO, a petitioner must prove that the respondent engaged in “repeated and unwanted contact[s]” that sub- jectively alarmed the petitioner as to the threat of physical injury, and that the alarm was objectively reasonable). The problem with petitioner’s argument is that we do not understand the trial court to have ruled on the suffi- ciency of the evidence. Instead, it appears to us that the court simply was not persuaded by petitioner’s evidence. Given that, it is immaterial whether the evidence, if believed, was sufficient to support the issuance of an SPO. Our standard of review requires us to review “the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the trial court’s dis- position.” H. L. P., 309 Or App at 109. Where, as here, the trial court did not make any express findings of fact, we “presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the trial court’s ultimate conclusion as long as there is evidence in the record to support those implicit findings.” M. A. B. v. Buell, 366 Or 553, 565, 466 P3d 949 (2020) (inter- nal q

206 June 4, 2025 No. 524 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. P. N. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. U., Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 23JU00969; A185938 (Control) In the Matter of A. L. W. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. U., Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 23JU00970; A185939 Rafael A. Caso, Judge. Argued and submitted April 30, 2025. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 206 (2025) 207 PER CURIAM Affirmed. 208 Dept. of Human Services v. M. U. PER CURIAM Mother appeals judgments terminating her paren- tal rights to two of her children, AL and AP. In four assign- ments of error, mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that she knew about and aided father’s sex- ual abuse of her stepchild, M, in determining that she was unfit to parent AL and AP, and in concluding that it would be in AL’s and AP’s best interests to terminate mother’s parental rights. We review de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(a), ORS 419A.200(6), and affirm.1 A parent’s rights can be terminated when a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is “unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimen- tal to the child,” that “integration of the child * * * into the home * * * is improbable within a reasonable time due to con- duct or conditions not likely to change[,]” and that termina- tion is in the “best interests” of the child. ORS 419B.500(1); ORS 419B.504; ORS 419B.521(1); State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 144-46, 36 P3d 490 (2001). “Evidence is clear and convincing when it makes the existence of a fact highly probable or when it is of extraordinary persuasive- ness.” Dept. of Human Services v. R. K., 271 Or App 83, 88, 351 P3d 68, rev den, 357 Or 640 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In her first assignment of error, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that she knew about and aided father’s sexual abuse of M. But mother reported father’s sexual abuse of M to police in April 2018, and, at the termination of parental rights (TPR) trial, M testified that mother knew about father’s sexual abuse. The detailed nature of mother’s report to the police supports its verac- ity. At the TPR trial, mother testified that her report to the police was false, but her account of why she lied to the police is implausible. In addition, the juvenile court found that mother’s testimony was not credible, and that some of M’s testimony about sexual abuse was corroborated and credi- ble. Even on de novo review, we give “considerable weight” 1 Also decided today is Dept. of Human Services v. M. D. M., 341 Or App 201, (Jun 4, 2025), in which we affirm judgments terminating father’s parental rights to the same two children. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 206 (2025) 209 to demeanor-based credibility findings, because the juve- nile court judge “had the opportunity to observe the wit- nesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. B., 294 Or App 514, 516, 432 P3d 343 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record de novo and giving due weight to the juvenile court’s demeanor-based credibility findings, we reject mother’s first assignment of error. In her second and third assignments, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in determining that she was unfit to care for AL and AP because she has kept father away from the farm for six years, she intends to continue doing so, and her other children will ensure that father has no contact with AL and AP. However, at the time of the TPR trial, mother was pregnant with her seventh child, and she acknowledged that father was the father. Reviewing the record de novo, it shows that mother is unable or unwill- ing to understand that father is a danger to the children. In addition, mother has not participated in services since 2021, she remains married to and dependent on father, and we

158 June 4, 2025 No. 513 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. P., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. P., Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 24JU01576; A185671 Todd L. Van Rysselberghe, Judge. Submitted April 30, 2025. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Kyle Sessions, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 158 (2025) 159 JOYCE, J. In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals from the juvenile court’s judgment asserting jurisdiction over his child A based, in part, on father’s mental health issues and pattern of impulsive behavior.1 Father raises three assignments of error, all of which reduce to the argu- ment that the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) failed to prove that father exposed A to a nonspecu- lative threat of serious loss or injury as a result of father’s mental health issues and impulsivity. We affirm. Absent de novo review, which father does not seek, when reviewing the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction, “[w]e view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favor- able to the juvenile court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit the outcome.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H. S., 292 Or App 708, 709, 425 P3d 775 (2018). Juvenile court depen- dency jurisdiction is authorized under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) when a child’s condition and circumstances expose them to a current threat of serious loss or injury that will likely be realized. Dept. of Human Services v. A. L., 268 Or App 391, 397-98, 342 P3d 174 (2015). ODHS bears the burden of prov- ing a nexus between the allegedly risk-causing conduct and probable harm to the child. Id. at 398. We conclude that the record before the juvenile court at the July 2024 jurisdiction trial was sufficient to sup- port its determination that then-four-month-old A would be exposed to a nonspeculative threat of serious loss or injury without dependency jurisdiction. Preceding A’s birth, ODHS and the juvenile court had already been involved with father’s family for about two years, in relation to parents’ older child J and two of moth- er’s other children. Father’s relationship with ODHS was contentious and combative, with father frequently sending rambling, hostile, and threatening messages to ODHS staff. The ODHS caseworker believed that father did not perceive 1 Mother did not appeal the jurisdiction judgment and is not a party to this appeal. 160 Dept. of Human Services v. M. P. reality like others, that he did not recognize the concerns that DHS had presented, and that he was unable to discuss his children’s needs. A was born prematurely, in March 2024, and was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and placed on a CPAP machine to address his respiratory dis- tress. While spending time with A in the NICU, father’s behavior was “unusual,” with him making “strange hand and body movements” and talking rapidly to himself, the wall, or someone who was not there. When a doctor and nurses explained that A was in respiratory distress and needed the CPAP machine to assist him with breath- ing, father did not acknowledge what was being said and appeared to not understand, continuing to insist that the CPAP machine was not safe. Father attempted to remove the CPAP machine, but hospital staff stopped him, deter- mined that he should not be left alone with A, and reported the incident to ODHS. Father and mother did not visit A after he was discharged from the hospital into ODHS’s tem- porary custody in April 2024. There is also evidence in the record that the apart- ment where father and mother had been living was unsafe. There was garbage throughout the apartment, including rotting food and used feminine hygiene products, and a thick layer of sawdust from the pallets they broke down and burned for heat covered much of the kitchen. At the jurisdiction trial, father frequently inter- rupted the proceedings, reacting to arguments from the parties and the testimony of witnesses and speaking to him- self or t