Judge names DFPS temporary managing conservator after Amarillo children removed from home

A Amarillo district judge on Feb. 21 placed four children — Isaiah Jeffries, Blaziana Dunn, Micah Pineda and Kira Jeffries — into the temporary managing conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), after a contested hearing in which the court found the evidence showed continued danger if the children were returned to their mother.

The court order followed testimony from DFPS investigators and medical experts about missed pediatric follow-ups, a recent hospitalization for the youngest child and school attendance records showing the two older children missed roughly half the academic year. Judge (name not provided) said the evidence supported naming DFPS as temporary managing conservator and keeping the children in out‑of‑home placement while casework proceeds.

Why it matters: The ruling transfers day‑to‑day decision‑making for the children from the parents to DFPS while the agency manages medical care, schooling and placement. The court also authorized an expedited home‑study of the maternal grandmother’s new residence to determine whether placement there would be appropriate under DFPS supervision.

DFPS investigator Ashley Delgado and caseworker Roshanda Archie testified the investigation began after health‑care providers flagged missed follow‑up care for Isaiah, who was born prematurely and had been treated in the NICU. Dr. Rachel Anderson, a pediatrician, testified she saw Isaiah in clinic after a hospital stay and initially was “a little bit concerned,” that his weight and immune status left him vulnerable. Anderson explained that premature infants are more susceptible to serious infections and that growth faltering (historically called “failure to thrive”) was a concern: “Failure to thrive is actually a little bit of a an older diagnosis. We changed the name to growth faltering,” she said, adding that the child’s weight had improved after caregivers increased feeding and clinic follow‑up.

Archie testified DFPS initially placed the children with maternal grandmother under a safety plan in early February, but staff later learned additional people had moved into the grandmother’s three‑bedroom apartment, increasing total household occupancy substantially. Archie said the apartment itself was “clean and appropriate,” but that the number and identities of new occupants — including at least one adult with an active CPS history — raised safety and supervision concerns.

On schooling, school records introduced at the hearing showed Kira and Micah had missed 56 days of school out of 113 days enrolled; the attendance clerk who testified said roughly half the absences were unexcused. The judge described the volume of missed school as “absolutely inexcusable” and said the older children would require close oversight to catch up academically.

DFPS asked the court to name it temporary managing conservator and to proceed with placement and services. Attorneys for the mother and for relatives emphasized that grandmother had cared for the children, that Isaiah’s weight had improved while in her care and that the mother had provided a signed temporary‑custody agreement to grandmother before the safety plan. Mother’s counsel also noted the mother had recently scheduled mental‑health and intake appointments and had produced negative drug screens in December and February.

The court found the combination of (1) the mother’s inconsistent engagement with court‑ordered services and medical appointments, (2) the ongoing medical risk to Isaiah given his prematurity and prior hospitalization, and (3) the children’s prolonged school absences justified naming DFPS temporary managing conservator and continuing the out‑of‑home placements. The judge said: “I do find the evidence is sufficient to name the department as the temporary managing conservator” and ordered continued oversight while the agency pursues services and placement planning.

The judge directed DFPS to run an expedited home study of the maternal grandmother’s current address and left open the possibility of placement there if the study, lease status and a transportation plan were satisfactory. The court set a status hearing for Apr. 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

The order preserves parents’ rights to work services and to seek reunification; the judge said credit will be given for any work a parent has already completed in the underlying case but emphasized the need for “more progress with respect to stability.”

What’s next: DFPS will continue as temporary managing conservator, pursue the expedited home study, and work with parents and relatives on services and placement options. The court will revisit the status of services and placement on Apr. 22, 2025.