Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:36:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C76B05.8A91FBE0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C76B05.8A91FBE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=84047 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Send this document to a=20 colleague

Close=20 This Window

Opinion=20 issued March 15, 2007

In = The

Court of=20 Appeals

For=20 The

First=20 District of Texas

NO. 01-04-01026-CV

_________

TAMMY RENEE=20 WHITWORTH, Appellant

DOUGLAS WAYNE WHITWORTH, = Appellee

On = Appeal=20 from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court=20 Cause No. 2000-64428

OPINION ON=20 REHEARING

Carol = Whitworth, the=20 intervenor, filed a motion for rehearing. We withdraw our Opinion = and=20 Judgment of November 22, 2006 and grant the motion for=20 rehearing.

Appellant, Tammy = Renee=20 Whitworth, challenges the trial court's final decree of divorce = that named=20 intervenor, Carol Whitworth, sole managing conservator of Tammy's = minor=20 child, K.C. In two issues on appeal, Tammy argues that the trial = court=20 erred (1) in failing to name her as joint managing conservator and = (2) in=20 giving her less than a standard possession order. We = affirm.

Background

Tammy and=20 Douglas Whitworth married in August 2000, but separated in = September or=20 October 2000. Douglas filed an original petition for divorce a = couple of=20 months later. A second original petition for divorce was filed by = Tammy,=20 and the trial court signed an order of consolidation. Tammy and = Douglas's=20 only child, K.C., was born on June 13, 2001.^{=20
(1)} By order = entered=20 November 30, 2001, Tammy was given custody of K.C. and Douglas was = given=20 two hours a day visitation five days a week and ordered to pay = $500 a=20 month to Tammy as temporary spousal support. Three months later, = Tammy=20 filed a motion for enforcement of temporary spousal support. =

Almost one year after Tammy was = given=20 custody, the trial court heard the parties' application for = temporary=20 custody orders pending the divorce. Although we have no transcript = of the=20 hearings held on a Friday and Monday, testimony from the divorce = hearing=20 indicates that the trial court heard testimony that Tammy had = repeatedly=20 denied Douglas access to K.C., had alleged that Douglas sexually = abused=20 A.C., K.C.'s half-sister, and feared his unsupervised visitation = with K.C.=20 Douglas repeatedly denied these allegations. The testimony further = indicated that, during the course of the earlier hearing, the = trial court=20 ordered Tammy to have her mother, Gayle Cash, bring K.C. to the = court and=20 warned her numerous times that she would be held in contempt if = she did=20 not, but Tammy did not have K.C. brought to the court. The docket = sheets=20 reflect that, at the end of the Friday hearing, the trial court = found=20 Tammy in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail for = "continuous=20 parental alienation against father through repeated = visitation/access=20 denials and behavior in court."

On the same day as the Friday = hearing,=20 Carol Whitworth, Douglas's mother, filed an original petition for=20 intervention stating that she was K.C.'s paternal grandmother and=20 requesting that K.C. be placed in her care on "a temporary and/or=20 permanent basis."

Tammy stayed in jail for the = weekend and=20 appeared in court for the continuation of the hearing on Monday. = At the=20 end of the hearing, the trial court entered an order appointing = Carol, the=20 intervening grandparent, as temporary sole managing conservator of = K.C.=20 and Tammy and Douglas as temporary possessory conservators with = only=20 supervised rights of possession for four hours every other week = through=20 the SAFE Supervised Visitation Program of the Victim's Assistance = Center=20 ("SAFE"). The docket sheet from the Monday hearing stated that = Tammy and=20 her mother, Gayle Cash, had "exercised continuous parental = alienation=20 against father through repeated visitation/access denials and = behavior in=20 court during this hearing" and that supervised visitation was = ordered=20 because of the seriousness of the allegations against Douglas and = the fact=20 that the trial court deemed Tammy a "flight risk with child as=20 demonstrated by her behavior to court since 10/18/02 [the Friday=20 hearing]." The trial court ordered Dr. Edward Silverman to conduct = psychological evaluations of Tammy, Douglas, and Carol. Both Tammy = and=20 Douglas were ordered to pay Carol child support for K.C. and to = ensure the=20 maintenance of health insurance for K.C. The trial court also = enjoined=20 Tammy from telephoning Carol and from going within 50 feet of = Carol's=20 residence. Four months later, the trial court also ordered that = Tammy and=20 Douglas were enjoined from taking photos of K.C. while she was at = SAFE.=20

More than one year later, on = April 13,=20 2004, the trial court heard evidence to determine custody of = two-year-old=20 K.C. At the time of trial, Douglas was not seeking primary custody = of the=20 child. The trial court entered a final decree of divorce stating = that=20 neither Tammy nor Douglas would be the managing conservator of = K.C.=20 because it "would not be in the best interest of the child because = such=20 appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health = or=20 emotional development."

The decree ordered that Carol, = the=20 intervening grandparent, be appointed as the sole managing = conservator of=20 K.C. The trial court found that a standard possession order for = either=20 Tammy or Douglas was inappropriate and not in the best interest of = K.C. It=20 ordered that Tammy continue to have only supervised visitation for = four=20 hours every other Saturday and that Douglas have supervised = visitation to=20 be determined by his mother, Carol. The trial court = entered no=20 findings of fact or conclusions of law. Two months later, Tammy = filed a=20 motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Tammy appeals = from the=20 trial court's custody determination in the divorce = decree.

Standing

We first review Carol's = standing to=20 intervene in this action. The parties did = not raise=20 standing in their initial set of briefs nor was a motion to strike = the=20 intervention filed with the trial court, but we may address it sua = sponte.^{=20
(2)} We review a = court's=20 determination of a grandparent's standing to intervene in a = pending=20 divorce proceeding under an abuse of discretion standard. See=20 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =A7 102.004(b) (Vernon Supp. = 2006). A trial = court abuses=20 its discretion when its decision is arbitrary or = unreasonable. = See = Gillespie v.=20 Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982).

Carol has=20 standing to intervene in this action. Generally, an intervenor = must show=20 standing to maintain an original suit in order to intervene.=20 Segovia-Slape v. Paxson, 893 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. = App.--El Paso=20 1995, no writ); McCord v. Watts, 777 S.W.2d 809, 812 = (Tex.=20 App.--Austin 1989, no writ). This showing requires that the = intervenor=20 have some present justiciable interest in the subject matter of = the suit.=20 Segovia-Slape, 893 S.W.2d at 696. However, an intervenor = in a=20 suit affecting the parent-child relationship does not need to = plead or=20 prove the standing required to institute an original suit because = managing=20 conservatorship is already in issue. Id. Specifically, = section=20 102.004(b) of the Family Code provides that the trial court may = grant a=20 grandparent leave to intervene in a pending suit filed by a party=20 authorized under section 102 of the Family Code to bring an = original suit=20 affecting the parent-child relationship. Section 102.004(b), as it = existed=20 at the time that Carol and Douglas filed their divorce, provided=20 that:

An original=20 suit requesting possessory conservatorship may not be filed by a=20 grandparent or other person. However, the court may grant a=20 grandparent or other person deemed by the court to have had=20 substantial past contact with the child leave to intervene in a = pending=20 suit filed by a person authorized to do so under this subchapter.=20

Tex. Fam.=20 Code Ann. =A7 102.004(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006) (emphasis added); = see In re=20 M.A.M., 35 S.W.3d 788, 790 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no = pet.)=20 (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing = the=20 intervention of biological grandparent under section 102.004(b));=20 McCord, 777 S.W.2d at 812 ("It has been held that, as a = matter of=20 law, grandparents possess a justiciable interest in their = grandchild" and=20 that grandparents who intervene in a proceeding are not required = to plead=20 and prove the requirements for standing to bring an original = action.).=20 This subchapter applies to interventions seeking managing = conservatorships=20 as well as those seeking possessory conservatorships. In re=20 Hildago, 938 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1996, no=20 writ).

This=20 relaxed standing rule for intervention promotes the overriding = policy in=20 all suits affecting the parent-child relationship, that of = protecting the=20 best interest of the child. Segovia-Slape, 893 S.W.2d at = 696;=20 see also In the Interest of K.T. & M.T., 21 S.W.3d = 925, 927=20 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, no pet.)=20 ("Sound = policy=20 underlies the Legislature's creation of a relaxed standing rule = subject to=20 court discretion for intervention in an existing suit. Where a = suit is=20 already pending, concern for the privacy of the parties is = subordinate to=20 the overriding concern for the best interest of the=20 children."); Harrison = v.=20 Harrison, = 734 S.W.2d = 737,=20 740-41 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1987, no writ) ("There is a = significant=20 difference between filing an original proceeding which could = disrupt the=20 children's relationship with their parents and intervening in a = pending=20 suit in which that relationship had been sufficiently interrupted = to cause=20 the filing of a suit requiring the courts to decide what decree = would be=20 in the children's best interest."); Young v. Young, 693 = S.W.2d=20 696, 698 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ dism'd)=20 ("Intervention under these circumstances may enhance the trial = court's=20 ability to adjudicate the cause in the best interests of the = child.").=20 Thus, while the statutory scheme assures that = grandparents are=20 not entitled to disrupt the child's family life and initiate suits = for=20 managing conservatorship except in limited circumstances, once the = child's=20 best interest is before the court and being litigated, the trial = court has=20 discretion to determine that the intervention by a grandparent may = enhance=20 the trial court's ability to adjudicate what is in the best = interest of=20 the child. McCord, 777 S.W.2d at 812. =

In the=20 instant case, Tammy and Douglas had filed a suit for divorce. As = K.C.'s=20 biological parents, pursuant to section 102 of the Family Code, = they were=20 both authorized to file an original suit affecting the = parent-child=20 relationship. Allegations of inappropriate and questionable = behavior by=20 both parents had been asserted, raising the question of parental = custody.=20 It was in this context that Carol filed a petition for = intervention.=20 Carol's petition was filed on the same day that the trial court = found=20 Tammy in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. Carol is = K.C.'s=20 undisputed paternal grandmother and contends that her appointment = as=20 managing conservator would be in the child's best interest. = Accordingly,=20 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that she = had=20 standing to intervene in this suit. See In re M.A.M., 35 = S.W.3d=20 at 790.^{=20
(3)}

Sole Managing = Conservatorship

In two issues, Tammy argues = that the=20 trial court erred by appointing Carol as the sole managing = conservator=20 with primary physical possession of K.C. and giving Tammy a less = than=20 standard possession order. Tammy contends that awarding managing=20 conservatorship to Carol under the facts of this case violated = section=20 153.131 of the Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the = United States=20 Constitution. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =A7 153.131 (Vernon = 2002).

Standard of = Review=20

We review a = trial=20 court's determination of conservatorship for an abuse of = discretion.=20 Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d at 451. The test for an abuse of = discretion=20 is whether, in the opinion of the reviewing court, the trial = court's=20 rulings were arbitrary or unreasonable. Id. The mere fact = that a=20 trial judge may decide a matter within his discretion in a = different=20 manner than an appellate judge in a similar circumstance does not=20 demonstrate that an abuse of discretion has occurred. Sw. Bell = Tel.=20 Co. v. Johnson, 389 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. 1965). An abuse of=20 discretion does not occur as long as some evidence of a = substantive and=20 probative character exists to support the trial court's decision. = Lide=20 v. Lide, 116 S.W.3d 147, 152 (Tex. App.--El = Paso=20 2003, no pet.).

Section 153.131 of the = Family=20 Code

There is a strong presumption = that the=20 best interest of a child is served if a natural parent is = appointed as a=20 managing conservator. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =A7 153.131(a) = (Vernon=20 2002); Brook v. Brook, 881 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Tex. 1994); = In re=20 De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, no = pet.);=20 In the Interest of A.D.H., 979 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tex.=20 App.--Beaumont 1998, no pet.). Section 153.131(a) statutorily = provides for=20 the appointment of the parent as sole managing conservator or the = parents=20 as joint managing conservators, unless the court finds the = appointment=20 would not be in the best interest of the child because it would=20 significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional = development.=20 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =A7 153.131(a).

For the court to award managing = conservatorship to a non-parent under section 153.131, the = non-parent must=20 prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that appointing the = parent=20 as a managing conservator would result in serious physical or = emotional=20 harm to the child. Brook, 881 S.W.2d at 298; In the = Interest=20 of M.W., 959 S.W.2d 661, 665 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1997, no = writ). There=20 must be evidence to support the logical inference that some = specific,=20 identifiable behavior or conduct of the parent will probably cause = that=20 harm. M.W., 959 S.W.2d at 665. This link between the = parent's=20 conduct and harm to the child may not be based on evidence which = merely=20 raises a surmise or speculation of possible harm. Id. = When a=20 non-parent and a parent are both seeking managing conservatorship, = "close=20 calls" go to the parent. Id. at 666; Ray v. = Burns, 832=20 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Tex. App.--Waco 1992, no writ).

An adult's future conduct may = be somewhat=20 determined by recent past conduct. M.W., 959 S.W.2d at = 666. In=20 and of itself, however, evidence of past misconduct may not be = sufficient=20 to show present unfitness. Id. Further, it is wholly = inadequate=20 to simply present evidence that a non-parent would be a better = choice as=20 custodian of the child. Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 = S.W.2d 164,=20 167 (Tex. 1990). The non-parent must offer evidence of specific = acts or=20 omissions of the parent that demonstrate an award of custody to = the parent=20 would result in physical or emotional harm to the child. = Id.=20 Specific acts or omissions of a parent implicating a significant=20 impairment to a child's emotional development may be inferred from = direct=20 evidence. De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d at 529.

Custody disputes by their very = nature are=20 inherently fact-intensive. Id. Appellate courts routinely = defer=20 to the fact finder at trial concerning matters of credibility and=20 demeanor, but perhaps in no other type of litigation is it more = critical.=20 Id.

In this case, during the = divorce trial,=20 the trial court heard testimony from numerous witnesses who = presented the=20 trial court with specific, credible evidence that, if Tammy was = given=20 managing conservatorship, K.C.'s emotional health would be = significantly=20 impaired. First, there was evidence presented to the trial court = that=20 Tammy has a history of subjecting K.C. to repeated investigations = for=20 claims of sexual and physical abuse when there was no evidence of = abuse.=20 There was evidence that, if Tammy was given managing = conservatorship, she=20 would continue to make such reports and significantly impair = K.C.'s=20 emotional health. Second, there was evidence presented to the = trial court=20 that Tammy has a history of denying K.C. any contact with her = biological=20 father. There was evidence presented that, if Tammy was given = managing=20 conservatorship, she would continue to deny K.C. access to her = father,=20 which would significantly impair K.C.'s emotional health. =

1. Repeated = investigations for=20 abuse

During the = divorce=20 trial, the trial court heard evidence that, after Carol was given=20 temporary managing custody of K.C., Tammy began making claims to = CPS and=20 law enforcement authorities that K.C. was being neglected by Carol = and was=20 being molested by Douglas. As a result, K.C. was subjected to = repeated=20 investigations by CPS and law enforcement authorities who found no = evidence to support any of Tammy's very specific and graphic = claims of=20 abuse.

a. = Christina=20 Bailey

Christina Bailey, a Children's = Protective=20 Services ("CPS") investigator, testified regarding her = investigations into=20 Tammy's allegations of abuse. She testified that, after Carol = received=20 custody, CPS received eight reports of physical abuse and neglect = to K.C.=20 by Carol and Douglas.

First Report: On = November 3,=20 2002, just two weeks after Carol received custody of K.C., CPS = received an=20 anonymous report of the abuse of K.C.^{=20
(4)} = The=20 caller reported that K.C. had what appeared to be cigarette burns = all over=20 her, had lost a lot of weight and was very pale, had bruises and = bumps all=20 over her body, had some kind of open sores on her head that were = oozing=20 pus, had scratch marks on her face, and had a rash that was = covering her=20 from head to toe. The caller also reported that K.C. spent a lot = of time=20 with Douglas. A CPS caseworker investigated the claims. She met = with=20 Carol, physically observed K.C., and found no evidence of abuse. = Despite=20 Tammy's testimony that the investigations were "inconclusive," = Bailey=20 testified at the divorce trial as follows:

Q. So did -=20 so was there a finding of any cigarette burns?

A.=20 No.

Q. No=20 finding of weight loss?

A.=20 No.

Q. No=20 finding of bruises all over the body?

A.=20 No.

Q. No open=20 sores?

A.=20 No.

Q. And no=20 scratch marks to the face?

A. No.=20

CPS=20 determined that K.C. did have some red sores on her body but they = were not=20 the result of abuse or neglect.

Second=20 Report: On March 18, 2003, Tammy reported to CPS that K.C. = had been=20 physically neglected by Carol and sexually abused by Douglas. = Tammy=20 reported that K.C. had vaginal irritation that was not consistent = with=20 diaper rash and that this was a sign that she was likely being = sexually=20 abused and that K.C.'s hair smelled like urine and cigarette smoke = and=20 K.C. was not thriving and was underweight. Bailey met with Carol = and K.C.=20 two days after the complaint was made and found no evidence of any = physical or sexual abuse. Despite Tammy's testimony that the=20 investigations were "inconclusive," Bailey testified as=20 follows:

Q. Did you=20 see any vaginal irritation?

A.=20 No.

Q. Did her=20 hair smell of urine?

A.=20 No.

Q. Did she=20 look like she was under weight or emaciated?

A.=20 No.

Bailey also=20 testified that she did not find any signs of diaper rash or any = redness in=20 K.C.'s diaper area. Bailey saw some areas of K.C.'s skin that had = red=20 blotches and was told by Carol that the doctor had diagnosed them = as=20 eczema. The case was closed.

Third=20 Complaint: On May 19, 2003, Tammy filed a complaint alleging = that=20 K.C. had a black eye and that it looked like K.C. had been punched = in the=20 eye. She also reported that K.C. had a vaginal irritation up = inside the=20 vaginal area that was not consistent with diaper rash (that she = did not=20 have any medication or doctor's note for the condition), K.C. had = sores=20 with pus in them all over her body (that she did not have any = medication=20 for those sores), and Carol had a flea infestation in her home. = Bailey=20 again met with Carol and K.C. at Carol's home and found no = evidence of any=20 physical or sexual abuse. Despite Tammy's testimony that the=20 investigations were "inconclusive," Bailey testified as=20 follows:

Q. Did you=20 find sores with pus over her body?

A.=20 No.

Q. Did you=20 find any flea infestation in the home?

A. No.=20

Bailey=20 spoke with K.C.'s pediatrician, Dr. Steven Alley, about Tammy's=20 allegations of vaginal irritation and physical abuse and neglect. = Dr.=20 Alley reported that he sees K.C. on a regular basis and has never = noticed=20 anything that concerned him in her vaginal area and that K.C. had = gained=20 weight since she had been with Carol. He also told the caseworker = that=20 Carol had brought K.C. in recently because her eye was swollen = from a=20 mosquito bite and that there was no evidence of bruising to the = eye. He=20 reported that K.C. had sensitive skin and that Carol had been=20 appropriately treating her for this condition and following his=20 recommendations. Bailey again closed the case and ruled out = Tammy's=20 allegations.

Fourth,=20 Fifth, and Sixth Complaints: Bailey testified that Tammy = filed a=20 series of three complaints on May 19, June 14, and July 1, 2003 = against=20 Carol and Douglas. These were handled as a single investigation. = These=20 claims were all similar to previous complaints. First, Tammy = alleged that=20 K.C. was seen at the SAFE House, where her court-ordered = visitations took=20 place, with pus-filled insect bites on her legs, scalp, and all = over her=20 body, some of which were bleeding; scratch marks that appeared to = have=20 been caused by something scraping across her back from shoulder to = shoulder, and underneath the scratch marks there was faint = bruising; and=20 redness in her vaginal area that was not consistent with diaper = rash. She=20 also reported that Douglas had a history of domestic violence and = is=20 violent.

In=20 investigating these claims, Bailey spoke with Mary Nell Timmons, a = supervisor at SAFE. Timmons told her that she, too, would be = concerned=20 about K.C.'s sores if K.C. were her child. She said that they = looked like=20 flea bites. She also said that the sores on K.C.'s body looked = really bad=20 and that she had noticed redness in K.C.'s diaper area. However, = Timmons=20 told Bailey that she did not think that K.C. was being abused or=20 neglected. She also told Bailey that she was not aware of K.C = having a=20 black eye and that she did not notice anything wrong with K.C.'s = eyes.=20 Timmons said that K.C. looked healthy, not thin or malnourished.=20

Timmons=20 also informed Bailey that the SAFE staff was concerned that, when = she=20 visited, Tammy was constantly taking pictures of K.C.'s vaginal = area and=20 was obsessed with what was wrong with K.C. Timmons said that Tammy = had to=20 be told to stop taking such pictures of K.C.

Bailey=20 interviewed Carol and Douglas and observed K.C. regarding Tammy's=20 complaints. Bailey also had K.C. medically examined for sexual = abuse at=20 the Children's Assessment Center. She testified, in detail, = regarding the=20 30-minute to one-hour examination that was conducted on = K.C.

A. Well,=20 I've been in there a few times. They--they kind of have to pull = and twist=20 and turn the child so they can examine and look into the vaginal = area and=20 take pictures so they sometimes have to move her into awkward=20 positions.

Q. Is she=20 clothed or unclothed?

A.=20 Unclothed.

Q. Totally=20 unclothed?

A. Yes.=20

Q. And in=20 that posture, then, the person doing the exam has to move her arms = and=20 legs in rigid positions for photographs?

A.=20 Yes.

Q. And=20 after her legs are spread apart, are photographs taken of her = vaginal=20 area?

A.=20 Yes.

Q. And in=20 your observations of that, how have the children = reacted?

A. Usually=20 they're very uncomfortable. Some scream. It's not a comfortable=20 exam.

Q. Have -=20 would it be a fair statement to say that you've observed a = tremendous=20 amount of anxiety on children when they have to undergo that=20 exam?

A.=20 Yes.

Bailey=20 testified that K.C.'s examination produced no evidence of abuse.=20

Bailey=20 explained to Tammy that, after investigating her claims, CPS had = not found=20 any evidence of abuse. Tammy was upset with the examination = results and=20 believed that they were incorrect. She insisted to Bailey that the = doctors=20 had not looked at K.C. in the right way to see the redness in her = vaginal=20 area. Tammy insisted that Bailey examine K.C. herself or that CPS = take=20 K.C. to another doctor. Bailey testified that it appeared Tammy = wanted=20 K.C. to be continually examined in her vaginal area until = something was=20 found and she was not concerned about the resulting trauma to K.C. = Bailey=20 testified:

Q. Did she=20 want the child to be continually medically examined in her vaginal = area?

A. That was=20 my impression.

Q. Did she=20 show any concern for the trauma that this would put the child=20 through?

A. None.=20

On July 1,=20 2003, Tammy also reported that K.C.'s right leg was injured and = twisted,=20 her right knee was higher than her left knee, K.C. had difficulty = walking,=20 K.C. was crying in pain, and she was covered in mosquito bites. = Bailey=20 testified that, when she went to see K.C. at her day care, she = found her=20 running and walking in no pain, nothing appeared to be wrong with = her=20 legs, and her right knee was not higher than her left knee. =

Seventh=20 Complaint: On August 11, 2003, Tammy reported that K.C. had = vaginal=20 irritation that was not caused by diaper change or diaper rash and = that=20 she had witnesses to this fact. She also reported that K.C.'s = vagina was=20 bright red internally and externally and that this was observed on = August=20 9th. She stated that K.C.'s sibling had been abused by Douglas = years ago=20 and the sibling had recently made a sexual outcry to a therapist = and that=20 CPS had ordered Douglas to have no contact with K.C.'s sibling; = K.C. is=20 not able to communicate with people; K.C is showing signs of = frustrated=20 behavior; and K.C. has fluid trapped between her knees because of = an old=20 knee injury, and it is unknown if she has received any treatment. = After=20 speaking with Rita McKinley, a director at K.C.'s day care, and = K.C.'s=20 guardian ad litem, the case was administratively closed without a = physical=20 examination of K.C.

Eighth=20 Complaint: Tammy reported on October 4, 2003 that K.C. had an = irritation in her vaginal and rectal areas. Tammy reported that = K.C. had=20 bruises on her calves, she was running a fever of 102 degrees, and = her=20 legs were misaligned because of an injury. Tammy also reported = that K.C.=20 had sores for the past few weeks that appeared to be getting = worse, and it=20 was unknown if Carol had taken K.C. to have them treated. After = speaking=20 with K.C.'s guardian ad litem, a supervisor at SAFE, and a = representative=20 of K.C.'s day care, CPS administratively closed the file on = Tammy's=20 complaint without further investigation.

Bailey=20 testified that it was CPS's position that K.C. is a healthy child = and that=20 Tammy was notified that CPS's investigations into her reports = found no=20 evidence of physical or sexual abuse.

b.=20 Carol Whitworth

During the=20 divorce trial, Carol testified about the effects of Tammy's claims = of=20 abuse on K.C. She stated that, in response to the five complaints = in which=20 CPS came out to her home, she had to present K.C. to be examined = by the=20 CPS case worker, the guardian ad litem, and then Dr. Alley for = abuse. She=20 testified that the process had been physically and emotionally = stressful=20 to K.C. Carol testified that it was horrible for K.C. to go = through the=20 investigations and that she had to comfort her and let her know = that she=20 was being loved and cared for. She testified that K.C. was = stressed and=20 not happy with the process, and Carol testified that she believed = that the=20 investigations exacerbated K.C.'s outbreak of eczema.

c.=20 Bob Wooten

Bob=20 Wooten, a captain with the Precinct 3 Constable's office, = testified at the=20 divorce trial that he received three calls from Tammy requesting = that he=20 go to Carol's house and conduct a child welfare check on K.C. = After the=20 first call, he went to Carol's home, but did not find anyone home. = He=20 testified that, after the second call, he went and observed K.C. = and found=20 nothing wrong with her. He testified that, in the third call, = Tammy told=20 him to check on K.C.'s fever. He testified that he went to Carol's = home=20 and found nothing wrong with K.C.^{=20
(5)}

d. = Marietta=20 Walker

Marietta = Walker, the=20 director of the day care that K.C. has attended almost every day = since=20 2003, testified at the divorce trial that she has never seen K.C. = with=20 oozing sores or sores that were oozing pus or blood, an injury to = her legs=20 that caused her legs to be misaligned or disfigured, or a black = eye that=20 was swollen shut that made her look like she had been punched in = the face.=20 She also testified that, during K.C.'s diaper changes, neither she = nor her=20 staff had seen a vaginal rash that was excessive beyond diaper = rash. She=20 testified that, had she seen any of those things, she would have = reported=20 it to the Texas Protective and Regulatory System.

e. Dr. = Steven=20 Alley

During the = divorce=20 trial, Dr. Steven Alley, K.C.'s pediatrician, testified that he = saw K.C.=20 for the first time several days after Carol was given temporary = custody.=20 Dr. Alley testified that, when he first saw her, K.C. had a severe = eczema=20 skin condition. He testified that the condition could have been = there for=20 longer than several days, and it "was not something that had come = up=20 overnight." He testified that Carol followed his instructions on = caring=20 for K.C.'s eczema.^{=20
(6)} Dr. Alley = testified=20 that he saw K.C. in his office at least a couple of times a month = for the=20 past year and that he saw no evidence of the alleged abuse = reported by=20 Tammy. Dr. Alley testified as follows:

Q. So, you have seen this child = numerous=20 times?

A. Correct.

Q. Have you seen any indication = of=20 malnutrition in this child?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen an = excessive=20 bruising on this child?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever - and I may = not say this=20 right. Have you ever seen any excessive vaginal rashes on this=20 child?

A. No.

Dr. Alley also testified that = he did not=20 observe K.C.'s legs to be bent and twisted, and he did not observe = her=20 covered with scars or sores filled with pus and blood. He = testified that=20 he saw K.C. with only the typical amount of mosquito bites on her=20 extremities for a child her age. He also testified that he once = treated=20 K.C. for vaginitis which cleared up quickly with the use of = antibiotics.=20

f.=20 Tammy Whitworth

Tammy = testified at the=20 divorce trial that she still believes that Douglas abused K.C. and = that=20 CPS did not inform her of the results of its investigations. Tammy = insists=20 that, to her knowledge, the numerous CPS investigations into her = reports=20 were "inconclusive" as to whether abuse occurred. Tammy testified = as=20 follows:

Q. Can you tell me how many=20 investigations have been done since this case has started through=20 CPS?

A. No, I couldn't tell you, I = don't=20 know.

. . .

Q. And there has [sic] been = quite a few,=20 though haven't there?

A. I believe so, = yes.

Q. And there's not been one = positive=20 finding yet, has there?

A. To my knowledge, they've = been=20 inconclusive.

THE COURT: I'm sorry = what?

A. They have been inconclusive, = to my=20 knowledge.

Tammy testified that she also = reported to=20 CPS that Douglas had molested A.C., K.C.'s half sister. She = testified that=20 A.C. was interviewed at the Children's Assessment Center and the = workers=20 there wanted to perform a gynecological examination of A.C. for = evidence=20 of abuse. Tammy told them that an examination had already been = performed=20 and that she would provide CPS and the Assessment Center with the = results.=20 Tammy testified that she never provided the results to the = Assessment=20 Center nor did she provide those records to Jane Markley, A.C.'s=20 therapist. Tammy testified that the result of the CPS = investigation into=20 her allegations regarding A.C. was "inconclusive."

Tammy violated the trial = court's order to=20 stop taking pictures of K.C. during SAFE visitations and was held = in=20 contempt after the court found that, on three separate occasions, = she had=20 violated the court's order regarding approaching Carol. Tammy = admitted=20 that, at the time that she made her reports to CPS and the = constable's=20 office, she was under a court order to contact the guardian ad = litem=20 before making any reports to an investigating agency and that she=20 disregarded that order.

g.=20 Dr. Edward Silverman

Dr. Edward=20 Silverman was appointed by the trial court to examine Tammy, = Douglas, and=20 Carol. Dr. Silverman testified that, even after learning of = Tammy's=20 history of claims to CPS and repeated violations of the trial = court's=20 orders, he still recommended that she be given managing = conservatorship.=20 However, he admitted that learning about Tammy's history = "absolutely"=20 makes him less confident in his recommendation and more concerned = about=20 the issues those facts raise. Dr. Silverman testified as=20 follows:

Q. Assume=20 with me, Dr. Silverman, that you had at your disposal all of the=20 information regarding the CPS referrals by [Tammy], the validation = - the=20 invalidation - pardon me - of those referrals by CPS, violation of = this=20 Court's order repeatedly in any number of ways, would that have = made any=20 differences at all in your ultimate recommendation about=20 custody?

A. Well, I=20 would have to say probably no in the sense that I have that = information=20 now and it would be incumbent upon me to change my recommendation = if I=20 felt that was warranted. Does it make me less confident in my=20 recommendation and more concerned about these issues that those = facts=20 raise? Absolutely.

(Emphasis=20 added.) Dr. Silverman testified that, in his opinion, Tammy was = not=20 intentionally fabricating allegations of abuse by Douglas. He = stated that,=20 if he believed that she was intentionally fabricating the = allegations, his=20 recommendation regarding conservatorship would be different. He = testified=20 that Tammy's beliefs of abuse and conduct with respect to Douglas = are=20 reasonable and understandable in light of the "great deal of = support and=20 validation" she received from SAFE representatives and Jane=20 Markley.^{=20
(7)} He = testified=20 that, in his opinion, Tammy's numerous CPS reports were made out = of=20 concern for K.C.

Based on her personality test = results,=20 Dr. Silverman testified that Tammy has "very significant emotional = problems" and is "prone to hyperbole and exaggeration and this = further=20 erodes her credibility and trustworthiness with others. At = times, if=20 the end justifies the means, she may even be more blatantly = deceptive and=20 manipulative." (Emphasis added.) As Dr. = Silverman=20 concluded, "And, again those are the sort of things that make it = difficult=20 - difficult for someone to trust what she says about a lot of = different=20 things." Dr. Silverman's testimony and report of his examination = of=20 Tammy's personality traits provided the trial court with a = reasonable=20 basis to disbelieve Tammy's allegations of abuse and testimony in = this=20 case.

The record = contains=20 repeated examples of the type of deceptive and manipulative = behavior=20 described by Dr. Silverman. At the divorce trial Tammy was evasive = regarding her reports of abuse, and she changed her testimony when = she=20 thought that it was in her best interest to do so. For example, on = direct=20 examination regarding her reports to CPS of sores all over K.C.'s = body,=20 Tammy testified that, prior to Carol receiving temporary managing=20 conservatorship of her, K.C. did not have any skin problems other = than=20 three mosquito bites. When confronted with Dr. Bowman's medical = records=20 indicating that K.C. had a "rash all over body" while in Tammy's = care,=20 Tammy explained that K.C. had an allergic reaction, but she had = "never=20 been diagnosed with a skin condition." After she was accused of = playing=20 word games, Tammy testified, "Well, it's a skin problem, but not = diagnosed=20 as eczema or impetigo like has been suggested." She further = acknowledged=20 that Dr. Bowman's notes were in direct contradiction to her = testimony in=20 court that K.C. had only a few mosquito bites while in her=20 care.^{=20
(8)} She = ultimately=20 admitted that Dr. Bowman's notes reflected a diagnosis of impetigo = and=20 diaper rash, seven days before K.C. was released by the court into = the=20 custody of Carol.

Dr.=20 Silverman testified that there were things about Tammy's = personality and=20 the way she has presented herself that would make it reasonable = for the=20 trial court to conclude that she was capable of fabricating = allegations in=20 this case:

Q. But if=20 it was in her benefit to make these allegations against Doug, she = would=20 persist in those particular items, wouldn't she? Isn't that her=20 nature?

A. What=20 allegations are you referring to?

Q. Say the=20 sexual allegations. If it was to her benefit to make those = allegations,=20 she would persist in those would she not?

A. I=20 couldn't answer that with certainty. If you're asking me whether I = think=20 that she's fabricated these allegations about [K.C.'s older = sister], that=20 wasn't my conclusion. And if it had been my conclusion then my=20 recommendation would be very different.

If you=20 ask me whether there are things about her personality and the way = that she=20 has presented herself that would make one think that she may be = capable of=20 doing that, I would say that would be a reasonable conclusion for = someone=20 to think that she might be capable of doing = that.

(Emphasis=20 added.)

When asked=20 to confirm his position regarding the allegations of abuse, Dr. = Silverman=20 testified that he did not think that Douglas was a sexual = predator. Dr.=20 Silverman testified as follows:

Q. Okay in=20 your recommendation, sir, just with respect to Doug, you've = recommended=20 that he be given visitation without supervision; is that=20 correct?

A. That's=20 correct.

Q. Would=20 you, sir, give him that kind of recommendation if you, in fact, = thought he=20 was a sexual predator?

A. No.=20

Dr.=20 Silverman's testimony did not give the trial court any reason to = conclude=20 that Tammy would, in fact, change her belief that Douglas was = abusing her=20 children and stop reporting him to authorities. Dr. Silverman = testified=20 from his report that, once Tammy reaches a conclusion about = something=20 important to her, she tends to hold on to this conclusion quite = rigidly=20 even in the face of contradictory information.^{=20
(9)} When = responding to a=20 question about whether there was ever anything really wrong with = K.C., Dr.=20 Silverman also testified that "ultimately, again even if she is = the most=20 well-intended mom on earth who is not being deceitful even for a = second,=20 if she continues to always perceive her child as unhealthy, that = in and of=20 itself would be detrimental to [K.C.]."

h. Dr. Sharon=20 Hunt

Finally, = the trial=20 court heard evidence from Dr. Sharon Hunt, another court-appointed = psychologist who examined Carol and K.C. She testified that, if in = response to CPS complaints, a child is repeatedly subjected to = interviews=20 for abuse and made to remove her clothes for repeated examinations = for=20 abuse, the child's emotional development would be significantly = impaired.=20 She also testified that, if a parent who has custody continues to = make=20 unsupported claims of abuse by temporary caregivers, a child's = emotional=20 development would be impaired and that this would interfere with = the=20 child's development of a relationship with the temporary = caregivers.=20

The trial=20 court heard voluminous testimony regarding Tammy's history of = subjecting=20 K.C. to repeated investigations for unsubstantiated claims of = abuse and=20 her likelihood to continue doing so, thus significantly impairing = K.C.'s=20 emotional health. It also heard testimony that Tammy had a history = of=20 denying K.C. any contact with her biological father and her = likelihood to=20 continue doing so, thus significantly impairing K.C.'s emotional = health.=20

2. = History=20 of denying K.C. contact with her biological = father

During the=20 divorce trial, the trial court heard evidence that, while she had = custody=20 of K.C., Tammy repeatedly violated the trial court's visitation = orders,=20 denying K.C. access to her father. The trial court heard = testimony,=20 disputed by Tammy, that, over the course of one year, Tammy did = not allow=20 Douglas access in 82 out of 85 court-ordered visitations. The = record=20 reflects that, after "multiple warnings," the trial court = sentenced her to=20 10 days in jail for "continuous parental alienation against father = through=20 repeated visitation/access denials and behavior in court." Based = on her=20 behavior to the trial court, the court also deemed Tammy a flight = risk=20 with K.C. The trial court heard testimony that, as a result of = Tammy's=20 conduct, K.C. was prevented from bonding with her father. =

Despite=20 this conduct, Tammy testified that it was in K.C.'s best interest = to have=20 a good relationship with Douglas and Carol. She testified that, if = she=20 were awarded managing conservatorship, she would not "take off" = with K.C.=20 and hide her at a relative's house. She testified that, although = she had=20 violated a number of the trial court's orders, once the trial was = over,=20 she would follow the court's orders.

Tammy=20 testified regarding her history of noncompliance with the trial = court's=20 orders. Tammy admitted that she was held in contempt for violating = the=20 court orders concerning K.C.'s visitation with Douglas, presenting = K.C.=20 for court hearings, and for her demeanor in the = courtroom. = Tammy = testified that=20 the trial court found her in contempt because she did not have = legal=20 representation to present her side of the case.

Dr.=20 Silverman testified that he believed that Tammy would comply with = future=20 court orders concerning visitation with Douglas. However, when = confronted=20 with evidence of Tammy's significant history of noncompliance and = his own=20 prior testimony that the past conduct typically is a strong = predictor of=20 future behavior, he considerably qualified his testimony on this = issue.=20 Dr. Silverman testified as follows:

Q. Okay.=20 Would you agree with me that there is a significant history of=20 noncompliance with the Court's orders?

A.=20 Yes.

Q. And is=20 the past not typically a strong predictor of future=20 behavior?

A. Often it=20 is, yes.

Q. Why in=20 the world, then, would we believe that during the pendency of a = lawsuit=20 [Tammy] would violate a court order over and over and over again = when the=20 custody of her child was hanging in the balance, and yet, it's = your belief=20 if I understand you correctly, that if given custody of this = child, she's=20 going to follow this Court's order once she has custody of=20 [K.C.]?

A. I=20 mean, I think there's good reason to be skeptical of it. It's not = like I'm=20 saying I believe very strongly and I have the utmost confidence in = that.=20 I'm coming down on that side of the fence, but, however, so = slightly.=20 Some of those violations occurred prior to [K.C.] being taken away = -

Q. Yes,=20 they did.

A. - and I=20 think that that - sort of her perception of what could happen to = her was=20 probably a lot different then than afterwards. As far as a lot of = the=20 violations that you've talked about, I haven't had any opportunity = to talk=20 to her about what her thinking was and what - how she would = explain her=20 awareness of whether she felt that would jeopardize her ability to = have=20 [K.C.] or not.

I = mean,=20 there's no question that - that - that those violations were - = were, in my=20 opinion, self-destructive. And there's also no question that I = think=20 any reasonable person would have to wonder whether she's going to = be able=20 to conform to the requirements of the Court in the=20 future.

(Emphasis=20 added.) Finally, when asked about the impact to a child from being = deprived of her father, Dr. Silverman responded that, "And again, = not=20 having a relationship with one's father, I think, significantly = impairs=20 one's emotional development."

Based on=20 our review of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court did = not abuse=20 its discretion in appointing Carol as the sole managing = conservator=20 after=20 finding, by a preponderance of credible evidence, that appointing = Tammy as=20 a managing conservator would result in serious physical or = emotional harm=20 to K.C. See Brook, 881 S.W.2d at 298. We also hold that = the trial=20 court did not abuse its discretion in awarding = Tammy less=20 than standard possession.^{=20
(10)}⁼

We overrule Tammy's = first and=20 second issues.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the = trial=20 court. All outstanding motions are denied as moot.

George C. = Hanks,=20 Jr.

Justice

Panel=20 consists of Justices Nuchia, Keyes, and Hanks.

Justice=20 Keyes, dissenting.

1. Tammy has = two other=20 children, A.C. and J.C., who are from different fathers.=20

2. We asked = the parties=20 to file supplemental briefs addressing standing.=20

3. The = dissent=20 apparently = argues=20 that, under the = holding=20 in Troxel = v.=20 Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000), it would = be=20 unconstitutional for the trial court to allow Carol to intervene = under=20 section 102.004(b). = Troxel involved = the=20 constitutionality of a grandparent visitation statute that allowed = any=20 person to petition the court for visitation rights at any time and = allowed=20 the court to grant such rights based on the best interest of the = child.=20 Id. at=20 60, 120 S. = Ct. at=20 2057. The Supreme Court held that = the=20 statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on a parent's=20 fundamental right to make decisions = concerning the=20 care, custody, and control of her children. Id. at 72,=20 120 S. Ct. at 2063. = Troxel does not, = however,=20 affect the issue of=20 establishing standing to=20 intervene = in an = ongoing suit=20 affecting the parent-child relationship presented = by the=20 case before us. In this = case,=20 section 102.004(b) does not interfere with a parent's right to = make=20 decisions concerning her children. As shown=20 below, before = Carol could=20 be awarded managing conservatorship, she was still required to=20 overcome the=20 strong = parental=20 presumption in favor = of=20 Tammy in a = trial on the=20 merits. See,=20 e.g., = In re=20 SSJ-J, 153 S.W.3d = 132, 138=20 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, no pet.) = (holding = that=20 Troxel=20 opinion=20 did not = affect issue of=20 grandparent standing because = Texas=20 Family Code standing statute does not overrule parental=20 presumption). = As = courts have = repeatedly=20 held, standing = to=20 intervene means only the = right to be=20 heard, not the right to win. = Id.=20

4. Although = Tammy=20 admits that she made similar reports of abuse to CPS, she denied = making a=20 report on this date. The trial court disagreed and made a contrary = finding.

5. Tammy also = testified=20 that another officer, Constable Edmundson, did a welfare check on = K.C. and=20 found nothing wrong with her as well.=20

6. Carol = testified that=20 K.C. had eczema when Carol was first given temporary custody.=20

7. Dr. = Silverman spoke=20 to Markley and Jamie Frank, the director of SAFE, by telephone and = included a summary of his conversation with them in his report. = Neither=20 Markley nor anyone from SAFE testified at trial nor were their = records=20 regarding K.C. submitted to the trial court for review.=20

8. In = addition to=20 playing these "word games," Tammy was evasive when she was = questioned=20 about whether she influenced K.C.'s half-sister into making an = "outcry" of=20 abuse against Douglas by repeatedly discussing her alleged abuse = in front=20 of her.=20

9. As an = example of=20 this behavior, Dr. Silverman testified that Tammy believes Douglas = to be=20 the biological father of A.C., despite a DNA test that states that = he is=20 not the father. Tammy stated to Dr. Silverman that it was her = belief that=20 the DNA test was inaccurate because milk products can cause = bacteria that=20 invalidate the results of a DNA test.=20

10. Tammy also = argues=20 that the trial court's action violated her rights to due process = under the=20 United States Constitution. However, Tammy did not assert any=20 constitutional claim before the trial court and she has not = preserved this=20 issue for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.=20

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C76B05.8A91FBE0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C76B05.8A91FBE0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C76B05.8A91FBE0--