in the Interest of H.M.R.J ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00171-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF H.M.R.J.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C210006-D
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, the trial court found: (1) that Mother
endangered H.M.R.J., her then fifteen-month-old daughter and the
subject of this suit; (2) that Mother failed to comply with the trial court’s
order specifying the actions Mother was required to take before the trial
court would require the [Department] to return the child to Mother; and
(3) that terminating Mother’s parent-child relationship with H.M.R.J. is
in H.M.R.J.’s best interest. 1 Relying on these findings, the trial court
1Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (b)(2).
1
signed a judgment terminating Mother’s relationship with H.M.R.J.2
Mother timely appealed from the judgment. In three issues, Mother
argues the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s findings
terminating her relationship with H.M.R.J., whom we will call Sara in
the appeal. 3 But we conclude the evidence is legally and factually
sufficient to support the trial court’s findings for the reasons explained
below. So we will affirm.
Background
Before addressing Mother’s arguments as she presents them in her
brief, we discuss the background that led to the Department filing the
case and the trial. In our discussion, however, the evidence is presented
in the light favoring the trial court’s findings. 4 To begin, we start with
the Department’s suit to terminate Mother’s parent-child relationship
2The trial court also terminated Father’s parent-child relationship
with H.M.R.J. after Father signed an affidavit of relinquishment. Father
did not appeal from the trial court’s order.
3We use pseudonyms for the names of the minor and members of
her family to protect Sara’s identity. Tex. R. App. P. 9.8 (allowing courts
to protect the identities of minors in parental-rights termination cases).
We further note the Department sued Father in this suit, and the trial
court terminated his relationship with Sara. Father, however, did not
appeal.
4In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009) (citing In re J.F.C.,
96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)).
2
with Sara, filed in January 2021. The petition is supported by an affidavit
signed by Kaitlin Clark, an investigator employed by the Department.
Clark’s affidavit states that the day after Sara was born, the Department
received a report alleging Mother was neglectful in supervising Sara.
In her affidavit, Clark describes that Mother and Father have an
extensive history with the Department, which dates to 2013. When the
Department sued and asked the court to place Sara in its custody, Mother
had already been involved with the Department in cases arising from her
neglectful care of her first three children. These earlier cases were
resolved in 2018, when Mother signed affidavits and voluntarily
relinquished her parental rights to these children when the trial court
signed orders terminating Mother’s rights to them. When the trial court
terminated Mother’s rights to her other children in 2018, Mother’s other
children were then ten, four, and one-year old. That said, evidence of how
Mother cared for her first three children is evidence the trial court heard
and could consider as relevant to how Mother would care for Sara if Sara
were to be returned to her should Mother’s past patterns of conduct
continue.
3
Mother’s history of neglect caring for her children is tied to her
history with issues involving her mental health combined with a history
of her use of illicit drugs. Clark’s affidavit revealed that when the
Department learned of Sara’s birth, it was aware of Mother’s pre-existing
history tied to her use of synthetic marijuana, negligent supervision of
her other children, and her failure to provide her other children a
suitable, safe place to live.
Based on the allegations in the Department petition and Clark’s
supporting affidavit, the trial court named the Department as Sara’s
temporary managing conservator. When the hospital discharged Sara,
the Department placed her in foster care. In a subsequent adversarial
hearing, the trial court ordered Mother to comply with the requirements
of a family service plan. Under the plan, the Department’s initial goal
was to reunite Sara with her mother. The initial plan the Department
filed with the trial court—a plan dated February 2021—required Mother
to complete several tasks. Among other requirements, the tasks the trial
court ordered Mother to complete included: (1) maintaining a safe, stable,
and appropriate home environment free from illegal drugs and violence,
(2) attending and completing a drug and alcohol assessment, (3)
4
submitting to alcohol and drug assessments, and (4) participating in and
completing a mental health assessment to address her mental health. By
May 2021, however, the Department changed the primary goal of the
family service plan from family reunification to unrelated adoption.
The trial court called the case to trial in May 2022. Nine witnesses
testified in the trial: (1) Mother; (2) the Department’s investigator,
Kaitlin Clark; (3) a psychologist, Dr. Nisha Amin; (4) a Child Protective
Services caseworker assigned to Sara’s case between September 2021
and December 2021, Randi Frazee; (5) a licensed professional counselor
who saw Mother in counseling, Ann Williams; (6) the Child Protective
Services caseworker assigned to Sara’s case as of April 2021, Beth Green;
(7) the CASA volunteer in Sara’s case, who testified that, in her opinion,
it was in Sara’s best interest for the court to terminate Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights; (8) one of Sara’s foster parents, who described
Sara’s medical problems, how those problems were being addressed while
Sara was in foster care, what a typical day of Sara’s life was like in the
foster home, and that Sara’s foster parents wanted the trial court to
terminate Mother’s and Father’s rights so they could adopt Sara; and (9)
Sara’s other foster parent, who gave similar testimony.
5
In general, the evidence in the trial shows that around 30 weeks
into Mother’s pregnancy, or about seven weeks before Sara was fully
developed, Sara was born. At birth, Sara weighed less than 3 pounds.
Sara couldn’t breathe or feed without assistance when she was born.
Along with those problems, Sara was diagnosed with having a hole in her
heart. Sara remained hospitalized for two months before she was
discharged.
In January 2021, the Department sued Mother and Father and
asked the trial court to remove Sara from her parents’ custody and name
the Department as Sara’s temporary sole managing conservator. In the
suit, the Department sought to reunify Sara with her parents. But the
Department also alleged that if reunification was not possible, it
requested that the court terminate Sarah’s relationship with her parents.
The affidavit Clark signed to support the Department’s petition for
removal was admitted without objection in the trial. Her affidavit
includes evidence addressing deficiencies in Mother’s ability to properly
supervise and provide Sara with a safe home. For instance, Clark’s
affidavit reveals that between 2013 and 2016, the Department required
Mother to complete services with the Department to improve her
6
parenting skills on three separate occasions after the Department
determined that Mother’s use of synthetic marijuana combined with the
conditions Mother and her children were living in were dangerous to
Mother’s first three children, yet Mother didn’t correct these problems,
and instead she chose to voluntarily relinquish her rights. Clark’s
affidavit shows that Mother attended family-based-safety programs in
2015 and 2016. Still, even after attending these classes and completing
these programs, Mother’s first two children—both girls, one age six and
the other not yet three-years old—were found beside a feeder road next
to an interstate highway without an adult. Clark’s affidavit goes on to
state that in 2017, these same two children told an adult that Father
(who is the stepfather to Mother’s first two children) had sexually abused
them. They also claimed that Mother knew they were being abused. So
in 2017, the Department filed suit to terminate Mother’s parental rights
to these two girls, their biological father’s rights to them, and then later
filed a suit to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Mother’s and Father’s
son, who in 2017 when the suit was filed was not yet one year old. As
previously mentioned, Mother resolved these cases by signing affidavits
7
voluntarily relinquishing her rights. Father resolved the case involving
his son by signing an affidavit voluntarily relinquishing his rights.
The trial court also heard testimony that shortly after Sara was
born, Mother told an investigator in a meeting that Mother “denied any
drug use.” Mother also told the investigator she spoke to that she was not
currently being treated for any conditions related to her mental health,
and that she had discontinued medications she used for the mental
condition after learning she was pregnant. But that was not the only
evidence admitted in the trial relevant to whether Mother used drugs
while pregnant with Sara. The trial court saw a report during the trial
that in June 2021, Mother told a psychologist she had abused “drugs for
eleven years on and off[,] but stated she has been sober for one year as of
May 28, 2020.” Mother told the same psychologist she was diagnosed by
a mental health professional she saw when she was sixteen “with bipolar
disorder, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety[,]” but “[s]he has not
seen one since.” The report was admitted into evidence during the trial.
Given Mother’s history with the Department, the Department
asked Mother to submit to further drug testing. Drug screens performed
on hair and urine samples Mother submitted in response to the
8
Department’s request were negative. Still, the Department questioned
whether Mother was still using synthetic marijuana because it is difficult
according to the Department’s investigators to detect synthetic
marijuana on tests. The Department’s investigators also continued to
question Mother’s ability to safely care for a child given her history with
the Department.
As for Mother’s home, Mother told the investigator she spoke to at
the hospital that the house where she planned to take Sara was “not
ready, as there is no electrical wiring in the home.” In January 2021,
Clark went to Mother’s home to assess its condition. At trial, Clark
described what she discovered:
There was a lack of electricity and plumbing in the home.
There were soft spots on the floor where I was told not to walk
for fear of falling through the floor. There w[ere] choking
hazards throughout the home; uncleanliness. There was a
large dog in the home. There was garbage in areas where
garbage should not be. There were a multitude of safety
concerns in the home.
Clark took photographs, and the photos were admitted into evidence in
the trial. According to Clark, the conditions she found in Mother’s home
in the inspection were like those the Department found when the
9
Department had investigated Mother’s other cases, cases that ended with
orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to her other children.
The trial court also heard evidence that were Sara to be returned
to Mother’s custody, Father (who had been accused by Mother’s first two
children of sexual abuse) might have access to Sara, as Mother and
Father were still married. Mother denied that she and Father still had a
relationship, but she didn’t deny they were still married. She explained
she had not gotten a divorce because she didn’t have money to get one.
Beth Green—a Child Protective Services caseworker who worked on
Sara’s case for about three months—testified that Mother doesn’t “seem
to understand the concern” created by the choices Mother has made more
than once to live with men who have a history of sexually abusing
children.
The trial court also considered the reports and the testimony of
several expert witnesses in the trial. Dr. Amin, a psychologist, was the
Department’s primary expert. She testified that she assessed Mother in
2015 after the Department took Mother’s children into custody from her
that year. The trial court admitted Dr. Amin’s 2015 report into evidence
during the trial. In 2015, Dr. Amin’s diagnostic impressions of Mother
10
included bipolar I disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
generalized anxiety disorder, substance use disorder (severe in remission
as self-reported), alcohol use disorder (moderate in remission as self-
reported), cannabis use disorder (severe in remission as self-reported),
and dependent personality disorder with schizoid personality features.
In her 2015 report, Dr. Amin recommended that Mother “will need to
ascertain a sponsor and develop a structured regimen which will foster a
sober lifestyle through further education and counseling.” The report also
notes that Mother “admittedly has not been consistent with treatment in
the past (and admittedly would not have sought out the treatment on her
accord, given her self-medication through drug and alcohol abuse) and
therefore on-going psychiatric treatment will be crucial.” Dr. Amin
recommended “psychopharmacological intervention[,]” and she noted
Mother “has a limited understanding of how drug and alcohol abuse
impacts children and the family system short and long-term[.]”
During the trial, Dr. Amin explained she reviewed her report and
the report of Dr. Meier. Dr. Amin testified she didn’t find “much of an
inconsistency” between the findings she included in the 2015 report and
what Dr. Meir included in the report he prepared after he saw and
11
evaluated Mother in 2021. And Dr. Amin testified that, based on her 2015
and his 2021 report, it didn’t appear that Mother, between 2015 and
2021, had adequately addressed the mental health issues she had
identified in her 2015 report. According to Dr. Amin, that’s because
“Mother doesn’t recognize her own mental health problems, so she
ha[s]n’t seen a psychiatrist.” And Dr. Amin explained that if Mother’s
past patterns of behavior remain constant and continue to prevent her
from addressing her psychological issues, a problem exists with Mother’s
“ability to be an effective parent.” Relying on what Mother reported to
Dr. Meier about when she quit using drugs, Dr. Amin testified that
Mother used illicit drugs when she was pregnant with Sara. According to
Dr. Amin, Mother’s use of drugs in the pregnancy “endangered the
physical or emotional wellbeing of that child.” Dr. Amin also testified she
doesn’t believe Mother has the ability to effectively parent Sara to age
18.
Dr. Robert Meier, a psychologist who evaluated Mother in June
2021, didn’t testify in the trial. The Department, however, offered and
the trial court admitted Dr. Meier’s six-page report of the psychological
evaluation he prepared after seeing and testing Mother in 2021. Dr.
12
Meier’s report reflects Mother told him she has a history of “abusing
drugs for eleven years on and off[,]” but that “she has been sober for one
year as of May 28, 2020.” Based on Mother’s history, Dr. Meier reported
that Mother has a history of using marijuana, synthetic marijuana, and
amphetamines. Mother also told Dr. Meier that when she was sixteen,
she saw a mental health professional, who diagnosed her with “bipolar
disorder, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.” However, she also told
Dr. Meier she had not seen another mental health professional since she
was sixteen. Dr. Meier diagnosed Mother with obsessive compulsive
disorder and anxiety, with considerations that include somatization
disorder, somatic pain disorder, hypochondriasis, dissociative disorder,
and personality disorder. He recommended that Mother be referred to a
psychiatrist and evaluated for psychotropic medications.
Georgia Williams, a licensed professional counselor who saw
Mother several times between June and September 2021, also testified
in the trial. Williams testified that Mother told her that her drug of choice
was synthetic marijuana, but she also told her that she had “used meth
for the prior year.” According to what Mother to Williams, Father in the
summer of 2021 was “living on the street and still using drugs[.]” And
13
even though Williams reported that Mother was attending substance
abuse meetings online, Williams testified that Mother minimized her
addiction in their meetings, as Mother “seemed to just not understand
the seriousness of [ ] staying clean.” Williams said that when she last saw
Mother in September 2021, Mother had still not gotten a sponsor in her
drug support group. Williams explained Mother didn’t demonstrate a
seriousness about her addiction when she was in counseling, nor did
Mother exhibit an ability to maintain a stable job.
The CASA assigned to Sara’s case testified she didn’t think Sara’s
current living arrangements with her foster parents “could get any
better.” The CASA further testified it wasn’t in Sara’s best interest to
remove Sara from her foster home. And the CASA testified no concerns
existed about the foster home based on the CASA’s visits there, as Sara
is “getting everything she needs” in the home.
The CASA also described what she saw when she went to Mother’s
home in December 2021. According to the CASA, she “was bitten by flees
upon arriving there.” In the room where Sara was to live, the CASA said,
“there was a rat situation, so [Mother] just closed the door because she
couldn’t seem to get rid of it.” The CASA testified you could see through
14
the vent on the floor “down to the ground” in the bedroom where Mother
said Sara would live. The CASA also described concerns with the flooring
in the bedroom, explaining she was concerned with its condition because
it looked as if “there was something crawling through it.” The CASA
testified that in April 2022, she made an unannounced visit to Mother’s
home to “see how [Mother] lives on a regular basis.” Mother was not
home. But the CASA testified the outside of the home showed “a lot of
deterioration[.]” There were bags of trash stored under the house,
insulation hanging from the house on both sides, a broken window, and
grass around the house growing up to three feet high. The CASA sent
Mother a text, explaining she was waiting for her. The CASA testified
she waited for Mother for hours, but Mother didn’t come home before the
CASA gave up.
Mother is the only witness her attorney called to present Mother’s
defense. When she testified, she denied using drugs while she was
pregnant with Sara. She said this case is different than the ones
involving her other children because unlike what she did then, she “bent
over backwards to complete [her] services” this time and had done all she
could financially and physically do to fix her home to provide Sara an
15
appropriate place to live. Mother testified the utility services are now
hooked up to her home. She said she has had electrical power there since
April 2021. Mother also denied she was planning to bring Sara home from
the hospital to the home inspected by the Department and the CASA.
Instead, she said she was planning to take Sara to her mother and her
grandmother’s home, a home she described as a “stone throw away from
[her] home.” Mother was cross-examined about her plans for Sara if the
court returned Sara to her. Mother responded:
A. My daily plan for my daughter? What, wake up in the
morning, have breakfast, or I mean?
Q. . . . So what is your daily plan for her? Have you thought
about it? What is it?
A. For her to be a kid.
Then when Mother’s attorney asked her what her daily plan for Sara was
throughout the day, she said:
A. Wake up in the morning, of course early because I wake
up early every day; breakfast, and if she’s in daycare take her
to daycare, but if she’s not in daycare we would play for a little
bit. If she’s not walking yet, maybe teach her how to walk a
little bit and work on that. I like to read to her because she
likes to sit there and help me turn the pages, which is the most
adorable thing ever. Maybe nap time, wake up and have a
snack, or maybe even a snack before nap time; depends on
how cranky she is. And then when she gets up, do it all over
again. Bath time and bed.
16
Mother also addressed the progress she said she had made handling
her addiction since Sara’s birth. She claimed that recently, she had
obtained a sponsor in her Narcotics Anonymous group. Mother also
claimed to have recently seen a psychiatrist. But Mother didn’t say whom
the psychiatrist she saw was, and she didn’t introduce the psychiatrist’s
records or the psychiatrist’s bill as evidence in the trial. According to
Mother, the psychiatrist did not prescribe any medications in the visit. 5
Mother also testified that several months before the trial, she
obtained counseling with another licensed professional counselor,
Virginia Manning. Mother testified that Manning “made [her] see what
I was doing wrong and helped me fix myself so I can be a better person
for my daughter.” The Department offered and the trial court admitted
Manning’s records into evidence in the trial. They show Mother saw
Manning six times, ending in February 2022. According to Manning’s last
report, Mother made “progress on treatment plan goals and objectives[,]”
which were (1) stabilizing and reducing presenting symptoms, (2)
improving symptoms of depression, stress, and anxiety, (3) reducing
5Mother also didn’t put any medical records into evidence, including
the records of a psychiatrist or any pharmacies.
17
unhealthy interpersonal relationships, and (4) developing healthy
decision-making skills. Mother testified she had completed parenting
classes and attended virtual Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings, describing them as positive. That said, Mother
testified she was still working on her first step of a twelve-step recovery
program in Narcotics Anonymous, which Mother described as the step
that involved realizing “why you were an addict and how.”
Mother described the jobs she’s held since Sara was born and how
she has managed to pay her bills. According to Mother, she has been
current on her bills for the past year. 6 All of the jobs Mother described
were short term. Mother worked cleaning houses, as a delivery driver,
and at call centers. Mother also testified she makes money by selling her
plasma as much as two times a week.
Mother described her decision-making skills as better now than
when Sara was born. She explained she would be willing to complete
more services with Manning, should the court consider a monitored
return in lieu of terminating her right to Sara. Mother testified she now
6Mother didn’t produce any documents to support her testimony
that she had been employed.
18
has a sense of self-respect, which she didn’t have before she went to
counseling. Mother explained:
It’s things that I didn’t ever really pay attention to before, but
in my defense[,] I was in a very bad addiction when I picked
my paramours before, and that was just - - My relationships
were devastating because I didn’t pay attention. I didn’t have
self-worth back then, self-respect.
When the trial ended, the trial court terminated Mother’s parent-
child relationship with Sara. In relevant part, the trial court found in its
order terminating Mother’s rights found (1) that Mother engaged in
conduct or knowingly placed Sara with persons who engaged in conduct
which endangered her physical or emotional well-being, and (2) that
Mother failed to comply with the provisions of her court ordered family
service plan. 7 The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s
parental rights to Sara is in Sara’s best interest. 8 Mother timely
appealed.
7See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O). As previously
mentioned, Father’s parental rights to Sara were terminated in the same
order.
8Id. § 161.001(b)(2).
19
Standard of Review
A trial court’s findings terminating the parent-child relationship
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. 9 To be clear and
convincing, the evidence “must produce in the mind of the trier of fact a
firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be
established.” 10
In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we consider the evidence
in the light most favorable to the finding, indulging every inference that
would support it, while disregarding all evidence a reasonable factfinder
could reject. 11 And we sustain the challenge only if the factfinder could
not form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegation.12 In
contrast, when reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider and
weigh all the evidence, including disputed and conflicting evidence.13 And
we set aside the finding only if “the disputed evidence that a reasonable
factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant
9Id. § 161.001(b).
10Id. § 101.007; see also In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005)
(cleaned up).
11In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.
12Id.
13In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345.
20
that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or
conviction” about the truth of the allegation. 14
In cases tried to the bench, the trial court, acting as the factfinder,
decides which witnesses were credible, how to weigh their testimony, and
resolves any inconsistencies or conflicts in the testimony. 15 Here, the trial
court found Mother endangered Sara, as it relied in part on subsection E
to terminate Mother’s parent-child relationship in its order. Since
proving a parent incurred a subsection E finding in a prior suit to
terminate the parent-child relationship of another child would authorize
a trial court to terminate a parent’s rights to other children in other suits
without requiring further proof, we review the trial court’s subsection E
finding before reaching Mother’s argument that the evidence is
insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that she failed to comply
with the requirements of her to court-ordered family service plan. 16 That
said, in our review, “[a]ll evidentiary standards, including clear and
14J.F.C.,96 S.W.3d at 267.
15Inthe Int. of D.P., No. 09-22-00048-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS
5279, at *24 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 28, 2022, pet. denied).
16See In the Int. of N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235-236 (Tex. 2019) (per
curiam).
21
convincing evidence, recognize the relevance of circumstantial
evidence.” 17
Analysis
In issue one, Mother argues the evidence is legally and factually
insufficient to support the trial court’s “conduct endangerment” findings.
Under subsection E, the Department had the burden to prove, by clear
and convincing evidence, that Mother engaged in conduct or knowingly
placed Sara with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered her
physical or emotional well-being. 18 Under E, the term endanger means
“expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize.” 19 Generally, a parent who
subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability has engaged in
conduct that endangers their child’s physical and emotional well-being.20
That said, proof of endangerment requires “more than a threat of
metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family
environment[,]” yet “it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at
re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 589 (Tex. 2015).
17In
18SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
19In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 312 (Tex. 2021) (quoting
“endanger,” WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE 599 (1976)).
20See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345 n.4.
22
the child or that the child actually suffers an injury.”21 Rather,
endangering a child based on a parent’s conduct means “to expose a child
to loss or injury or to jeopardize a child’s emotional or physical health.”22
And the parent’s endangering conduct need not occur in the child’s
presence, so conduct relevant to a factfinder’s decision may include
conduct the parent directed at another child, whether that conduct
occurred before or after the child the subject of the Department suit was
born. 23 Generally, from evidence of a parent’s past conduct showing the
parent subject a child to a life of uncertainty and instability, a factfinder
may infer that the parent will continue to engage in the conduct and the
same conduct will endanger another child’s physical and emotional safety
and well-being.24
Here, the evidence shows Mother has a decade-long history of
abusing illegal substances, substances that range from meth to
21Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex.
1987).
22In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. 1996).
23See J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345; In the Int. of B.P., No. 09-22-00031-
CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4277, at *25 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 23,
2022, no pet. h.).
24J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345 n.4; In the Int. of D.P., 2022 Tex. App.
LEXIS 5279, at *25.
23
marijuana and to synthetic marijuana. To be sure, Mother claimed to
have gained control of her addiction in the months leading up to the trial.
And to Mother’s credit, the drug tests the Department obtained during
the pendency of the suit involving Sara were negative. Yet while Mother
denied using illegal drugs while pregnant with Sara, the record contains
evidence to the contrary. Specifically, based on the history Mother gave
to Dr. Meier, Mother dated her sobriety as beginning on May 28, 2020.
Dr. Amin relied on that report to infer that Mother had used drugs for a
short period after she became pregnant. 25 As the factfinder in the trial,
the trial court had the right to “believe one witness and disbelieve others”
in resolving the conflicts in the testimony. 26
To be sure, regardless of Mother’s use of drugs during Sara’s
pregnancy, Mother in her own words described her past use of drugs as
a “very bad addiction.” Mother acknowledged she only recently became
aware of the seriousness of how her addiction was affecting her ability to
parent a child, explaining Virginia Manning opened her eyes to the
25The evidence before the trial court
shows Sara was born when she
was 30-weeks old, so there is an eight-day period after Mother became
pregnant during which the trial court could have inferred that Mother
was using her drug of choice, synthetic marijuana.
26McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. 1986).
24
seriousness of her problem in counseling despite the evidence she has
seen health-care professionals for drug-related problems who have told
her to take her addiction seriously since at least 2015.
In deciding whether Mother engaged in a deliberate course of
conduct that endangered Sara, the trial court was not required to ignore
Mother’s decade-long history of using drugs. As the factfinder, the trial
court was not required to believe Mother’s testimony suggesting she has
recently gained control over her addiction. Instead, from the evidence
admitted in the trial, the trial court could reasonably form a firm belief
or conviction that Mother’s underlying mental health issues and her
addiction with illegal drugs created a condition that endangered Sara if
the court returned Sara to Mother’s care. And it was reasonable for the
trial court to infer that the stress and anxiety underlying Mother’s
addiction would be aggravated should Mother be faced with the added
stress and financial burden of raising a child. Given the relatively short
duration of Mother’s claim of sobriety when compared to Mother’s history
of drug abuse, her admitted addiction, and the lack of evidence that
Mother successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program, the trial
court could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that
25
Mother’s use of illegal substances was a condition that endangered Sara
and that it justified granting the Department’s request to terminate
Mother’s parental rights. 27
We conclude the evidence allowed the trial court, acting reasonably,
to form a firm conviction or belief that Mother’s drug addiction creates a
condition that endangers Sara’s physical and emotional well-being.28 We
overrule Mother’s first issue. 29
Best-Interest Finding
In issue three, Mother argues the evidence admitted in the trial is
legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest
finding. 30 With respect to the child’s best interest, there is a “strong
presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the
27See In re J.O.A. 283 S.W.3d at 346; In the Int. of J.O., No. 09-16-
00485-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5011, at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
June 1, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
28Id.
29Because we have found the evidence sufficient to support the
subsection E finding, we need not address Mother’s second issue, which
challenges the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with the
requirements of her court-ordered, family service plan. See Tex. R. App.
P. 47.1.
30Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2).
26
child with the parent.” 31 But it is equally presumed that “the prompt and
permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is . . . in the
child’s best interest.” 32 In reviewing a trial court’s best-interest finding,
we consider the nine non-exhaustive factors identified in Holley v.
Adams. 33
In a best-interest analysis, courts focus on the best interest of the
child, not the best interest of the parent. 34 Often, the evidence supporting
the grounds the Department relied on to terminate a parent’s rights
under section 161.001(b)(1) is also evidence that may support a trial
31In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006); see Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. § 153.131(b).
32Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(a).
33In Holley, the Texas Supreme Court applied these factors when
reviewing a best-interest finding:
• the child’s desires;
• the child’s emotional and physical needs, now and in the future;
• the emotional and physical danger to the child, now and in the
future;
• the parenting abilities of the parties seeking custody;
• the programs available to assist the parties seeking custody;
• the plans for the child by the parties seeking custody;
• the stability of the home or the proposed placement;
• the parent’s acts or omissions that reveal the existing parent-
child relationship is improper; and
• any excuse for the parent’s acts or omission
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976).
34Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 907 S.W.2d
81, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ).
27
court’s best-interest finding. 35 Thus, the Department need not
necessarily present evidence on each Holley factor, and the absence of
evidence on one or more factors does not prevent the factfinder from
forming a strong conviction that terminating the parent-child
relationship is in the child’s best interest, particularly when the evidence
shows the parent engaged in conduct that endangered the child. 36
The trial court heard testimony that Sara is thriving in her foster
home. She has foster parents who are meeting her physical and her
emotional needs. The foster parents testified they want to adopt Sara.
The Department’s witnesses, the CASA, and the foster parents’
testimony all supports the trial court’s finding that terminating Mother’s
parental rights is in Sara’s best interest since terminating Mother’s
relationship offers Sara a prompt and permanent placement in a safe
home with parents capable of taking care of her needs.
Mother asked the trial court to return Sara to her on a monitored
basis as an option to terminating her parental rights. Mother testified
she is sober, no longer has a boyfriend since she and Father split up, is
35In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013).
36In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002).
28
planning to divorce Father, and is capable of providing Sara with a safe
and stable home. Mother also testified that when she was working, her
grandmother could help her with Sara, should she need assistance. Yet
the grandmother didn’t testify in the trial, so Mother was essentially
asking the trial court to take her word for it that the grandmother was
both willing and capable of helping her raise a child. On the other hand,
Mother admitted she didn’t know the names of the doctors who were
treating Sara for the variety of medical issues that are related to Sara’s
being born premature. The trial court also heard testimony that Mother
has delayed getting surgery care for a medical problem of her own and
testimony questioning whether Mother would take Sara to the various
out-of-town health-care providers she currently sees.
A parent’s past conduct is relevant to a trial court’s decision about
what is in a child’s best interest. 37 As already discussed, the trial court
heard evidence that Mother had drug abuse and mental health issues
that continued even after she gave up her first three children and was
counseled about the seriousness of her addiction. Given Mother’s
historical use of illegal drugs when compared to the length of time Mother
37Id. at 27-28.
29
admitted she gained the awareness that her problem was serious, the
trial court could reasonably infer that even if now in temporary remission
Mother’s addiction creates a condition that makes terminating Mother’s
parental rights so that Sara may be promptly and permanently placed in
a safe home where her needs are being met in her best interest.38 We
overrule Mother’s third issue.
Conclusion
We conclude that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports
the trial court’s endangerment and best-interest findings. For the
reasons explained above, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted September 20, 2022
Opinion Delivered November 17, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
38In the Int. of J.O., 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5011, at *9.
30