Judge keeps DFPS as temporary managing conservator, urges more in‑person visits in Y. Godina case

The High Plains Child Protection Court continued the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as temporary managing conservator of two children and ordered that the children remain in their current placement, the judge said at an Aug. 19 virtual review hearing.

The ruling came after DFPS emergency specialist Sean Ryan told the court the children are “thriving” in placement, that Jace had been accepted into special‑education pre‑K and that both children are continuing therapies. DFPS reported the mother had completed several court‑ordered services but remains in supervised placement status.

The court’s decision follows DFPS and other participants’ updates about parental progress, visitation and a denied home study for the children’s grandparents. The judge emphasized reunification as the goal but said stability, completion of services and demonstrated parenting skills will guide any change in placement.

DFPS reported the mother completed a therapeutic parenting course with Linda Dudley on June 11, completed domestic‑violence classes and a relapse‑prevention plan, and has had negative drug screens. DFPS said individual mental‑health treatment is ongoing. The mother has housing through HUD and employment, but lacks regular transportation, and the father is incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and has been transferred since the last hearing.

The court discussed visitation. DFPS and placement providers said in‑person visits are possible; placement offered to travel to the mother’s area at least twice a month if logistical and funding issues can be resolved. The mother told the court she had ended contact with the father after the last hearing and repeatedly said she would not resume contact: “I do not want him in my life anymore,” she said. The judge cautioned that the court will verify any future contacts through prison records or other means because misstatements about contact have arisen previously in the case.

Defense counsel and child advocates asked the court to increase in‑person and less‑supervised visits, citing the children’s young ages and Jace’s autism, which makes virtual visits difficult. DFPS said the mother has attended three early‑intervention therapy sessions for Jace and will be able to participate in more now that some services are complete; participants discussed arranging one‑on‑one sessions between the mother and Jace’s therapist so she can practice techniques outside the child’s presence.

The court also discussed a home‑study for the maternal grandparents that DFPS reported had been denied. DFPS provided a summary to counsel indicating the home study raised multiple concerns, including prior family history of removals while the grandparents were raising the mother, several arrests (including multiple domestic‑violence arrests for the grandfather), lack of verified income documentation, a household adult aged 24 residing in the home, and no demonstrated experience caring for a child with autism. The judge tabled detailed review of the home‑study until a redacted copy could be filed and reviewed by counsel and the court.

The judge directed DFPS to continue reasonable efforts toward reunification, encouraged the mother to engage directly and actively with Jace’s therapist, and said the court would revisit reunification if the mother demonstrates sustained stability and skill with the children. The next review hearing was set for Aug. 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.; the court noted a case dismissal date of Nov. 3, 2025, and said the period between hearings should focus on completing services and demonstrating parenting capacity.

Votes at a glance: The court issued an order continuing DFPS as temporary managing conservator and continuing the children in placement; the order was announced from the bench and recorded by the court but involved no roll‑call vote.