## In th e Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00359

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231

- 679118

- 20

Before Kerr , Birdwell, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum O pinion by J ustice Wa llach 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### T.R., T. R., AND 

### R.N.

- R., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this termination ca se, appellant J.R. (Mother) appeals the tri al court ’ s order terminating her p arental r ights to her children T

. R. ( T rev or ) , T. R. (Tina), and R. D. N.

- R. ( R obert ) (co llectively the Children)

. 1 In six i ssues, Mot her contends the e vid e nce was legally and factually insufficient to support termina tion under F amily Code Section 161.001(b)(1)( D) , (E) , (O), (P), and (R) and that the evide nce was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial cour t ’ s best

- intere st finding

. B ecause we will
hold that the evidence w as legally and factually suf ficient to support both the conduct ground s and the trial cour t ’ s best

- interest finding , we wi ll affirm the trial court ’ s termination order

. I. Ba ckgr ound Drugs are at the heart of this termination. Mother , who was thirty

- nine at the
time of trial , testified that she began using marijuana at eighteen and began using methampheta mines at twenty

- one . Her first child, Trevo r, was bo rn in O ctober
20 12 when Mother was thir ty

- one. Mother testified that she was n ot using drugs when
Trevor was born. Mother ’ s daughter , Tina, was born in December 2017. Mother
testifi ed that she began us ing her oin shortly after Tina ’ s birth. She explained that she began using heroin daily and was a heroin user from 2018 until 2020.

1 We use aliases to refer to t he Childre n and the parties

. See Tex. F a m. Code Ann. § 109. 0 02(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).3 The Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with Mother in Apri l 2019, wh en it rec eived a lle g ations that she had purchased methamphetamine s and “ would stay up for several days at a time due to her bein g under the influence. ” Morgan Overn, a n investig ator with the Department , testified
that she met with Mother after receiving the al lega tion, and Mother to ld her she had
used illegal dru gs “ several years prior ” but that she had not used illegal drugs i n

“ about 10 years. ” Overn requeste d that Mother complete an oral swab drug test, but
Mother refused. M other tol d Overn tha t she would go to a drug

- testing site the following day , but Mother did not have the testing done. After the Department
became in volve d, Mother pla ced Trevor in the care of one of M o ther ’ s relatives and placed Tina in the ca re of Tin a ’s pat erna l grandmother

. In May 2019, Trevor and Tin a

w ere taken to Cook Children ’ s Medical Center to be drug tested. Trevor did not have enough h air to be tes ted, but Tina was tested, and her results were positive for
metha mpheta mines and heroin. Overn later referred Mother to Re covery Resource
C ouncil , and Mother engaged its services in June 2019

. Mother admi tted to R ecovery Resource Council that she had us ed marijuana, methamphetamines, and h eroin in the
thi rty days prior to June 2019 , at a ti me when she was pregnant with Robert

. The Department filed its petition to terminate Mother ’ s pare ntal rights as to Trev or and Tina in August 2019

. In the petition, t he Department s ought termination
of Mother ’ s parental rights b ased on the pre dicate termination ground s set fo r th in
S u bsections ( D ) , ( E ) , ( F ) , (K ) , (M), ( N), (O ), (P ), (Q) , and (R) of S ection 161 .00 1(b)(1)4 of the Fa mily Code. 2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 16 1.001(b )( 1 ) ( D ) , ( E ) , ( F ) , ( K ) , (M), ( N), (O ), (P ), (Q) , (R)

. Arou nd that time, Jamesha Richard, a co nserva torship specialist for the Department , was assigned to Mother ’ s case. Richard met with
M othe r at a hearing on August 30, 2019 , and Mother admitted to Richard that she had relaps ed “ right before the

. . . he aring. ”
R

ic hard de veloped a service plan for M o ther

. Among other things, Mother was
asked to co mplete parenting cla sses, to attend individual counseling , to submit to a psychological evaluation , to submit to a drug abuse assessment , to comply with request s fo r rand om drug t esting , and to refrain from engaging in criminal activity

. Mother complied with some aspects of th e service plan. S he completed parenting classes, attend ed counselin g sessions , 3 su bmitt ed to a p sycholog ical evaluation, and
submitted to a drug abuse assessment.
As to the random drug t esting and th e requirement that she refrain from
cri minal activity , Mother ’ s drug

- test results c ame back negative in t he early months of

t he case : she had negative test results in September 201 9, Octobe r 2019, and
November 2 019. In December 201 9, however, Mother tested positive for methampheta mine s and heroin. That same mon th, Robert was born

. Robert tested

2 T he petition was later amended in De cember 2019, following Robert ’ s birth, and the Depa r tment sought termi nation of Mother ’ s rights as to all the Children alleg ing the same termi nation grounds as in the original petitio n .
3 While Mother atten ded several substance ab use counseling sessions, she was not discharged from counseling due to her continued use of illegal drugs.5 p ositive f or opiates at his birth , and after sp ending a month in th e NICU , he w as placed with a fos ter family. In February 2020, Mother tested po sitive for heroin. In May 202 0, Mother tested positive for methamphetami ne s . In July 2020, Mother tested positive for heroin. In August 2020, Mother tested po sitive f or methamphetamine s . Richard testified that Mother was dishonest about her drug use. Richard stated that
when Mother was confront ed with the positive test results, Mother would typically deny that she had u sed drugs

. At trial, however, Mother stat e d that she did not dispute the results of any of the drug tests. In explaining her relapses, Mother testifi ed
that s he had been pr escribed a legal do se of methadone during the summer of
20 19 af ter becoming pregnant with Rober t , and that she began using her oin in
2020 after she attempted to stop taking methadone on her own. In October 2020 , Mother w as admitt ed to Nexus Recovery. S he was still residing at Nexus at the time of trial in November 2020 but s tated that she would be discharged at the end of the we ek. Mother tes tified at trial th at she had been “ clean
for over a month. ” S he stated that following her discharge from Nexus, she was going
to attend a sober

- l iving program at the Oxfo rd House , an addiction recovery center

. She stated that at the Oxford Ho use she would r eceive counseling and recovery
support serv ices and that she would go to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. She also stated that s he would hav e a recovery coach t hat
could as sist her with finding a job. Mother admitted, h owever, that it would take6 “ months ” befo re she wa s fully recovered and “ a couple months ” to get a home, find a job, and be pre pared to take care of th e Children.
Follow ing tri al , the trial c ourt issued a ruling terminati ng Mother ’ s parental rights to the Children under Subsections ( D) , (E) , (O), (P), and (R) and finding that
such termination was in t he Children ’ s bes t interest

. Mother appeals from that

t ermi nation or der.
I I. Conduct Grounds
In h er first and second iss ue s , M oth er argues that the eviden ce w as legally a nd factually insu fficient to support termina tion under F amily Cod e Section
16 1.001(b)(1)( D) a nd (E )

. A. S TAND ARD OF R EVIEW For a trial cou r t t o ter minate a parent

– child relationship, t he pa rty seeking
termination must prove two e lements b y cl ear and convincing evidence: 1) that the
parent ’ s actions satisfy one gr ound l isted in Family Code Section 161.001(b) (1); and 2) that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. Id. § 161.001(b); In re E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. 2012) ; In re J .L. , 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Evidence is clear and convincing if it “ w ill produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to the truth of the allegati ons sought to be established. ” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007; E.N. C. , 384 S .W.3 d at 802.7 To determine wheth er the evidence is legally sufficient in par ental

- termination

cases , we lo ok at all the evidence in the light most favorable t o the challenged
find ing s

— here the endangerment findings

— to determine whether a reasonab le
fact fi nder could for m a firm belief or con viction that the finding is true. In re J .P.B. , 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 ( Tex. 2005) ; see Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)( D), (E)

. We assume th at the fact finder settled any evidentiary conflicts in favor of its finding if
a reasonable fact finder cou ld have done s o. J.P.B. , 180 S.W .3d at 5 73

. W e di sregard all
evidenc e th at a reasonable fact finder co uld have disbelieved, and we consider undispute d evidence even if it is contrary to the finding. Id. That is, we consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact finder could , and we di srega rd

cont rary evide nc e unless a reasonable fact fin der could not. See id. The fact finder is the

so le judge of the witnesses ’ credibility and demeanor. In re J.O.A. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009). We must perform “ an exacting review of th e enti re recor d ” in d etermining t he factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of a parent

– ch ild relationship. In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 2014). Nevertheless, we give due
deference to the fact finder ’ s finding s and do not s upplant them with our own. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). Here, w e review the whole record to decide
whet her a fact fi nde r could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the Departme nt proved the endangerment ground s . See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.8 § 161.00 1 (b) (1)(D), ( E) ; In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002). If the fact finder reasonably could form such a firm convic ti o n or belief, then the evidence is factually
sufficient. C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19.
B. L AW ON E NDANGERMENT Subsections ( D) a nd ( E) of Te x as Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) provide
that the trial court may order the termination of a pa rent ’ s rights if i t finds by clear
and con vincing evidenc e that a parent has (D) kn owingly p laced or knowingly allowed the child to remain i n condi tions or s urroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well

- being of the chil d ; [ or ] (E) engaged in conduct or kno wi n gly placed the child with persons wh o engaged in co nduct which endangers the physical or emotional well

- being of the chil d [

. ] Tex. Fam . Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E)

. “Endange r ” means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopardize. Tex. Dep ’ t of
Hu ma n Servs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); In re J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d 117,
125 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)

. Unde r Subsection 161.0 01(b)(1)(D), it is
necessary to exa mine the evidence related to the environment of the child to
determine if t he environment was the source of the enda ngerment to the child ’ s physical or emotional well

- being. J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125. Conduct of a p arent in
the home can creat e an environment that endangers the physical and emotional well

being of a child. Id

. As an example, a parent ’s illegal drug use and drug

- related9 c riminal activity support s the conclusion that a child ’s surrounding s endanger the
child ’ s physical or emoti onal well

- being. Id

. Under Subsection 161.001(b)(1)( E) , the relevant inquiry is whe th er e vi dence exists that the endangerment of the child ’ s phy sical well

- being was the direct result of the parent ’ s conduct, including acts, omis sions, o r fail ures to act. See id. ; see al so Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (E)

. Termination under Sub sec ti on (E) m ust be based on more than a single act or omission; a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious cou rse of conduct by th e parent is required. J .T.G. , 1 21 S.W.3d at 125

. It is not necessary,
however , that the parent ’ s co nduct be directed at the chi ld or that the child actually suffer injury. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d at 533; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125. The specific danger
to a chi ld ’ s well

- bei ng may be infe rred fro m parental misconduct standing al one. In re
R.W. , 129 S.W.3d 732, 73 9 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2004 , pet. denied). “ As a general rule, conduc t that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instab ility endangers th e phy sical and emotional w ell

- bei ng of a child. ” Id. Addi tionally, “ [a] mother ’ s use of drugs during pregnancy may amount to conduct that endangers the physical and
emotional well

- being of the child , ” and “ [d]rug addiction and its effect on a parent ’ s life and ability to parent ma y establ ish an e nd angering course of conduct as well. ” J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125

– 26.
C
. E NDANGERMENT A NALYSIS
Becau se th e evi dence pertaining to Subsec tions (D) and (E) is interrelated, we conduct a consolidated review. In re S. H. , No. 02

- 17

- 00188

- CV, 20 17 WL 45 42859, a t10 *10 (Tex. App.

— Fo rt Worth Oc t. 12, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op .); In re T.N. S. , 230 S.W.3d 434, 439 (Te x. A pp.

— Sa n Antonio 2007, no pet.). Here, t he record contains evidence that Mother had used illegal drugs for much
of her adult life and that she displaye d little ability to stop her addiction

. Mother began using marijuana at eighteen and methamphetamines at twenty

- one. Although
she testified that she was not using drugs when Trevor was born, Mother admitted
that she began using heroin shor tly after Tina ’ s bir th. Mother testified that she used heroin daily and that she used the drug from 2018 unti l 2020

. The record further reflects that the Department became inv olved in this case due to allegations of
Mother ’ s drug use

— i t was alleged that Mother “ would stay up for several days at a time due to her being under the influence. ” In M ay 2019, Tina tested positive for methamphetamines and heroin. Records from Recovery Re source Council show that Mother admitted to using marijuana, methamphetamines, and heroin while she was pregnant with Robert

. Mother ’ s illegal drug use continued eve n after the Department filed its petition to terminate her parental rights. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines and
heroin in December 20 19

. That same month, Robert tested positi ve for opiates at hi s birth

. Mother tested positive for heroin i n February 2020 , tested positive for methamphetamines in May 2 020 , tested positive for heroin in July 2020 , and tested
p ositive for methamphetamines in August 2020

. Richard testified that Moth er was11 dishonest about her drug use. At trial, Mother did not dispute the results of her drug

tests
. Viewing al l the evidence in the light most favorable to the t rial co urt ’ s jud gment and recog nizin g that the fac t finder is the sole arbiter of the w itnesse s ’ credib ility and demeanor, we hold that there is some evidence of an enda ngering
environment on which a rea sonable fact finder could have formed a firm b elief or

c on viction that Mother had k now ing ly placed or ha d knowingly allow ed the Children

to remain i n conditions or surroundings that had endangered their emotional or physica l well

- being and that there is some evidence of endangering con duct on which
a reasonabl e fact finder could have formed a firm belief o r conviction that Mothe r had engaged i n cond uct that had endanger ed the Children ’ s physical or emotional well

being. See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) ( D), (E) ; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125

– 26. Giving due deference to the fact finder ’ s e nd angering

- environment and
enda ngering

- condu ct findings, without su pplanting the f a ct finder ’ s judgment with our own, and after reviewing th e enti re record, we hold that a fact finder co ul d reasonably
form a firm conviction or belief that Mother had k nowingl y placed or had knowingly
all owed the Chil dr en to remain in cond i tions or surrou ndings that had endangered their emotional or physical well

- being and that Mother had engaged in conduct that had endangered the Chi ldren ’ s physical or emotional well

- being. Se e Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161. 001(b)(1)( D), ( E) ; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3 d at 125

– 26.12 We overrule M other ’ s first and second issue s . Because we hold that the
evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the en dan germent findings, and because only one findi ng is necessary to sustai n a parental

- rights te rmination, we n eed
not address Mother ’s challenges to the trial court ’s other findings of grounds for
termination. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); E.N.C. , 38 4 S .W.3d at 80 3; J.L. , 163 S.W.3d at 84; see a lso Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. We therefore o verrule Mother ’s t hird , fourth, and fifth issues.
III. Best Interest
In her s i xth issue, M othe r argues that the evide nce was legally and factuall y in sufficient to support the trial court ’ s best

- interest finding

. A. S TANDAR D OF R EVIEW AND B EST - I NTEREST F ACTORS We review Mothe r ’ s ch allenge to th e sufficie ncy of the trial co urt ’ s bes t

- interest finding under the review standards stat ed regarding the conduct grounds. In determining whether to support a best

- interest fi nding, we review the e nt i re record. In
re E.C .R. , 402 S.W.3d 23 9, 2 50 (Tex. 2013 ). Although we generally pre sume that
ke eping a child w ith a parent is in the child ’ s b est interest, In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006), the best

- i nte rest analysis i s child

- cen tered, focusi n g on the child ’ s well

- being, safety, and de velopment, In re A.C. , 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018)

. Evidence probative of a child ’ s best int eres t may be the same evidence that is probative of a Su bsection (b)(1) g roun d. E.C.R. , 40 2 S.W.3d at 2 49; C.H. , 8 9 S.W.3d

at 28 ; see Te x. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 6 1.001(b)(1), (2). We also consider the ev idence in13 light of nonexclusive factors that the fact f inde r may apply in determining the child ’ s best interest: (A) th e child ’ s desir es; (B ) the child ’ s emotio nal and p h ysical needs, now and in the f u tu r e ; (C) th e em otional a nd phys ical danger t o the chil d now and in th e future; (D) the pa rental abilities o f th e in divid ual s seeking cu stody; (E) the progra ms avail able to assist t hese i nd ivid u als to promote the chi l d ’ s b e st interest; (F) the plans fo r t h e child b y the se ind iv id uals ; (G) the stab il ity of the ho me or p ro pose d placemen t; ( H) the pare nt ’ s acts or omissio ns ind icating th at th e exist in g pare nt

chi ld re lationship is no t a pr oper one; a nd (I ) a n y e xc use f or t h e parent ’ s acts or om issi ons. Hol ley v. Ad a ms , 544 S. W. 2d 367, 371

– 72 (Tex. 19 76) ; see E .C.R. , 402 S.W.3 d at 249 ( stati ng t hat in revi ewing a best

- int erest fi nding, “ we co nsider, a mong other

e v iden c e , the Holle y fac t ors ” (foo tnote omi t ted) ) ; E. N. C

. , 3 84 S. W.3d at 807

. These
fa c to rs are n ot exhaustive, and some l ist ed f act ors may not a ppl y to some cases . C.H. , 89 S.W .3d a t 27

. Furt he rmor e, undis puted e vidence o f just one f actor may be
sufficie nt to sup port a f inding th a t t ermin at io n i s in the child ’ s best int erest
. I d

. On
th e oth er han d, the presence of scan t evi denc e r elevant to each f a ctor wil l not su pport such a find ing. Id

.14 B. B EST - I NTEREST A NALYSIS With regard to the C hildren ’ s emotional an d phys ical n eeds now an d in the
future and the emotional a nd physical danger to t hem now a nd in t he future , the
record refl e cts that Mother abu sed illegal drugs to the det rimen t of the Children.
Mother became a daily heroin user shortly after Tina ’ s birth , and short ly after the Department became involved, Tina tested positive for methamphetamines and heroin.
The re cord f urther reflects that Mother used illegal drugs while pregnant with
Robert

— records from Recovery Res ource Council indicate that Mother used marijuana, methamphetamines, and heroin in the th irty days prior to June 2019 , and
Richard te stified that Mother told her that she had relapsed “ right bef ore ” an August 30, 2019 hearing. Robert ultimately t ested positive for opiates at his December
2019 birth. Mother continued using illegal drugs following Robert ’ s birth, testing posit ive for methamphetamines a nd/or he roin in February , May, July, and August
2020. While Moth er stated that she had been “ clean for over a month ” at trial , Mother
had previously had periods where she had not taken illegal drugs before relapsing. The

t ria l cour t was entit led t o find th a t this factor we igh ed in favor o f terminatin g M other ’ s parent al rights to the C hildren

. With regard to th e plan f or the Children by the indiv iduals s eeking custody and
th e sta bility of t he home or proposed p lacement , the record reflects that Richard

reco mmended that the Children be adopted and that it was i n their best interest to be adopted

. The record also reflects that Robert was placed with a foster family shortly15 after his b irth and that he had bonded with the family , was thriving , and that the
famil y wished to adopt him

. The record further reflect s that that same foster family was interested in adopting Tina

. 4 The record also reflects tha t Trevor ’ s current caregiver

— Mother ’ s relative that had taken care of him since shortly after the Department ’ s inv ol vemen t in the case

— desired to adopt him. The Department was also considering whether Tr evor could be placed with a forme r boyfrien d of Mother ’ s who had been a father figure in Tr evor ’ s life. Mother testified that the Children appeared to be well taken ca re of by their respective placements. As to Mother ’ s plans , the record reflects that Mother had not establis hed employment at the time of
trial an d had not established any kind of home or housi n g , although Mother be lieved that a recovery coach at the Oxfor d House could as sist her with finding a job. Mother admitted, however, that it would ta ke “ months ” before she was fully recovered from her drug add iction and that it would take “ a couple months ” to get a ho me, find a job, and be prepared to take care of th e Children. The t ria l cour t was entit led t o find tha t this factor we igh ed i n favor o f terminatin g M other ’ s parent al rights to the C hildren

. With reg ard to Mother ’ s acts or om issions indicating that the exis ting parent

– child relatio n sh ip is not a p rope r o n e and any excuse for Mother ’ s acts o r omissio ns , the r ecord refl ects , as de tailed above, t hat Mother abused illegal drugs to the

4 Tina ’ s paternal grandmo ther, who had been tak ing care of Tina since the Depar tment ’ s involvement in the case, was evidently in ho spice care at the time of trial.16 d et riment of the Children. Tina tested positive for methamphetami nes and heroin , Mother used marijuana, methamphetamines, and h eroin while pregnant with Robert , and Robert ultimately t ested positive for opiates at his birth. Mother continued using illegal drugs f ollowing Robert ’ s birth, testing positive for methamphetamines and/or
he roin in February , May, July, and August 2020. At trial , Mother stated that she began using drugs on a regular basis because she was “ mo lested as a child [a nd] grew up with
alc ohol ic parents , ” although Mother admitted th at she was responsi ble for Robert
be ing positive at birth for opi ates and that she wa s responsible for Tina testing positive for methamphetamines and heroin. The t ria l cour t was entit led t o find tha t this factor we igh ed in favor o f terminatin g M other ’ s parent al rights to the C hildren

. C
. B EST - I NTE R ES T C ONCLUS ION Viewing the eviden ce i n the light m ost favora ble to the t r ial court ’ s best

inte r est findin g , we hol d that a reas o n abl e f act finder could have r easonabl y formed a
firm conviction o r belief that te rmi natio n of the parent

- c hild re lat ionsh ip be twee n Mother a nd the Children wa s in th e C hildren ’ s best inte r est , and we theref ore ho l d
th at t he evidence is legally s ufficient to supp ort th e tri al court ’ s best

- int erest findi ng . See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 16 1.001(b) (2) ; J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3 d a t 573

. Based on ou r exacting review of the entire rec ord and gi ving due defe re nce to t he fact f inde r ’ s find ings, we likew ise con cl ude that th e e vidence is fac tually sufficient to support th e trial court ’ s bes t

- interest finding

. See C. H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19

. Accordin g ly , w e

o verrule Mother ’ s s ixth iss ue.17 IV. C onclusion
H a ving overr uled Mot he r ’ s six issues, we a ffirm t h e tri al court ’ s te r mination

o rd er.

/s/ Mike Wallach M ike Wallach Justice
Delivered: April 15, 2021