Opinion issued March 29, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00713-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.D.Y. AKA J.Y., J.E.D.Y. AKA J.Y., M.M.D.Y.

AKA M.Y., I.E.J. AKA I.J., M.D.K.G. AKA M.Y. AKA M.O.D.Y., and 

J.T.D.Y. AKA J.Y., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-00167J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

C.B.A.K. (“Mother”) challenges the trial court’s final decree terminating her 

parental rights to her minor children M.D.K.G. AKA M.Y. AKA M.O.D.Y. 

(“Mike”) and I.E.J. AKA I.J. (“Ivan”). The trial court terminated Mother’s parental 

rights to Mike based on the court’s finding that Mother committed the predicate acts
2

under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (J), and (O), and it 

terminated Mother’s parental rights to Ivan based on the court’s finding that Mother 

committed the predicate acts under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O). Mother 

argues there is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s 

findings that termination of her parental rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest. 

We affirm the trial court’s final decree.

Background

Mother has six children: Mike, J.T.D.Y. AKA J.Y. (“Julie”), J.C.D.Y. AKA 

J.Y. (“Jack”), J.E.D.Y. AKA J.Y. (“John”), M.M.D.Y. AKA M.Y. (“Mark”), and 

Ivan. Mike’s father is K.G. (“Father G”), Ivan’s father is N.D.J. (“Father J”), and 

Julie, Jack, John, and Mark’s father is M.Y. (“Father Y”). 

A. Family’s History with the Department

The record reflects that the family has been involved with the Department 

since at least March 2014.

On March 1, 2014, the Department received a referral alleging child neglect 

and physical abuse. According to the referral, the household included Mother, who 

was pregnant, her paramour, and four children between the ages of one and six years 

old. The family was living in “deplorable conditions.” The house was “nasty” and 

there was a “stench as you walk into the home.” It was littered with clothes “and 
3

stuff,” and did not have “a sink, a bathroom shower or tub.” There was an in-ground 

pool in the backyard, but no fencing. 

According to the referral, Mother, who was pregnant with Mark, had been 

high the day before during a party at the house. Mother’s speech was slurred, her 

eyes were “red blood-shot, and she could not carry a conversation.” Father Y, who 

attended the party, said there was “a lot of marijuana in the home,” but the 

Department did not know if the “marijuana was left out where the children had 

access to it.” The Department’s disposition stated, “unable to determine and ruled 

out.”

On March 2, 2014, Mother and Father Y had a “family dispute.” Father Y 

“shot at the car with the mother and children inside,” and then “committed suicide 

with a gun in front of the children” and Mother. 

On May 31, 2014, the Department received a referral alleging physical abuse 

after Mother and Mark tested positive for marijuana at Mark’s birth. Mother said 

she was using marijuana to cope with prior domestic violence and Father Y’s suicide. 

Mother only sought prenatal care with Mark after her seventh month of pregnancy. 

Following this referral, Mother entered into a family-based safety services plan 

(“FBSS”) with the Department. Among other things, the FBSS required Mother to 

refrain from illegal drug use, submit to random drug testing, and have Mother’s sister 
4

move into the home to serve as a monitor. In October 2014, the Department reported 

that Mother had been compliant with the FBSS.

On May 14, 2019, the Department received a referral for physical neglect from 

one of Julie’s teachers. According to the referral, Julie’s hygiene had been 

deteriorating since early April 2019, and her clothes had a “very strong urine smell.”

Julie, who weighed 80 only pounds despite being 5’ 8,” was “skinny” and she often 

asked to take food home from school. The teacher knew that Julie helped care for 

the younger children and she had heard that the utilities in Julie’s home were often 

not working. The Department investigated and found the home in good shape, but 

no disposition was given because it was an “Alternate Response Case.” 

On February 26, 2020, the Department received a referral from Father G for 

physical neglect and physical abuse. According to the referral, the family had been 

living in a one-bedroom hotel for a week. The hotel room was dirty, clothes were 

strewn about, and there were no sheets on the bed. Mike, who reportedly slept on 

the floor, smelled like mildew, his hair was smelly and matted, and he was not 

wearing any socks. He stated he had gotten into trouble recently for taking a bath. 

Father G wanted to take Mike and get him cleaned up, but Mike was too afraid to 

leave his siblings and he was scared that Mother would find out he had been talking 

to Father G. 
5

According to Father G, Mike was skinny, he appeared malnourished, and his 

leg bones protruded. Mike told Father G that he was fed three meals per day on 

some days, but he went to bed without food on other days. Mike, who was twelve 

years old, stated that he had not been in school in a month, and he was left to care 

for his five younger siblings, including two-year-old Ivan, when Mother went out.

Mike told Father G that Mother and her boyfriend spent all their money on 

marijuana, and Mike had seen Mother smoke marijuana. Father G believed that 

Mike was depressed.

Father G made the referral after Mike found him on Instagram. Father G told 

the Department this was the first time he had seen Mike in seven years because 

Mother had been hiding Mike from him. Father G expressed concern that Mother 

would disappear with the family again. The record reflects that the Department was 

unable to investigate because it could not locate the family.1

B. Present Case

On February 2, 2022, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

filed an Original Petition for Protection of a Child for Conservatorship, and for 

1 On July 12, 2022, six months after the children were taken into the Department’s 

care, Julie reported that she had been sexually abused by two maternal uncles when 

she was six years old and eleven years old. Julie stated she told Mother about the 

abuse, and Mike confirmed he knew about it. According to Julie, a maternal aunt 

may also have seen the abuse. On July 25, 2022, Julie made a detailed outcry of 

abuse. It is not necessary to discuss the details of the abuse for purposes of this 

opinion.
6

Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship seeking to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to Mike, Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan.2 Brandi 

Whitely, a Department investigator, prepared the affidavit attached to the 

Department’s petition. 

On January 29, 2022, the Department received a referral from law 

enforcement for physical neglect and physical abuse of Mother’s six children. 

According to Whiteley’s affidavit, the police became involved after a concerned 

citizen reported seeing Mike and Jack walking down the road nearly two miles from 

Mother’s home at 10:45 p.m. The officers found Jack near the home, and they found 

Mike at a Sonic. The police, who took the boys home, reported that Mother was not 

at home when they arrived that night, and that Mike was his siblings’ primary 

caretaker when Mother was away. The officers tried to contact Mother, but the calls 

went straight to voicemail. 

The police reported that Mother’s home was “unsuitable,” and it had “an odor 

of urine” emanating from within it. According to the referral, the officers saw four 

rats run through the home, rat holes in the walls, piles of black trash bags in the 

kitchen and living room, and roaches crawling out of the bags. It appeared to the 

2 The Department also sought to establish the children’s parentage. After establishing 

Father J was Ivan’s father and Father G was Mike’s father, the Department filed an 

amended petition seeking to terminate Father J’s parental rights to Ivan and Father 

G’s parental rights to Mike. 
7

officers that “the children [had not] showered in a few days” and two of the children 

in the home hid from the police.

The police reported that Ivan, who was three years old, had “excessive marks 

and scratches all over his body,” and it appeared to be “more excessive than just 

getting bumps and bruises from running around.” Ivan had a “fresh” scratch on his 

back and another on his toe that was bleeding. He also had other marks that “looked 

old and were scars.”

The case was tried to the court over four days: May 10, 2023, May 15, 2023, 

June 5, 2023, and July 24, 2023. Whitely was the Department’s first witness.

C. Trial Testimony

Department investigator Brandi Whitely, Department caseworker Victoria 

Martinez, Mother, Jane Piaskowski with Child Advocates, Department caseworker 

Shanequa Davis, and substance abuse counselor Lindsey Cason testified for the 

Department. Margaret Florence and Mother testified on Mother’s behalf.

1. Brandy Whitely, Department Investigator 

Department Investigator Whitely testified that the police referred the case to 

the Department after Mike and Jack were caught stealing food from a store and 

because the children had been “left alone.”

Whitely went to the home the next day, on a Sunday, to investigate the 

referral. According to Whitely, there were six children in the home but no adults. 
8

Mike, who answered the door, told Whitely that Mother was at work, and he allowed

Whitely to come inside the home to make sure the children were safe. According to 

Whitely, all the children “had a strong, musty, urine and filth stench that could be 

smelled when the door opened.” The children, who were wearing foul, soiled 

clothing, had trash or debris stuck in their “severely matted” hair, and it appeared to 

Whitely that none of them had bathed “for quite some time.”

Whitely stated the conditions she observed inside the home were “not livable 

for the children.” The carpets and walls were very dirty, the living room furniture 

was “soiled with no cushions on them,” there were “bags of trash throughout the 

home,” there were no televisions, and “loose wiring was seen hanging out the walls 

throughout the home.” Whitely saw “several rats and roaches in the home, mainly 

in the kitchen and dining area,” and there was a “huge pile of garbage” in the dining 

area that “had numerous rodents being seen hiding within it.”

Whitely testified there was no food in the house. The kitchen did not have a 

refrigerator or a working stove or microwave, and the kitchen cabinets were bare. 

According to Whitely, there were no cups, plates, utensils, pots, or pans in the 

kitchen. Whitely found a deep freezer in the laundry room, but it was empty. The 

laundry room was filled with soiled clothes on the floor. 

The children’s bathroom was completely unusable. According to Whitely, the 

toilet was backed up and there was feces and urine in the toilet and bathroom sink, 
9

which appeared to have been there for a long time. The bathroom sink countertop 

was broken and the tile on the floor was soiled as well. There was no toilet paper or 

toiletries in the bathroom, the bathtub was dirty, and there was nowhere in the home 

for the children to brush their teeth. According to Whitely, the toilets in the home 

would not flush and the children could not take a bath because there was no running 

water in the home. The kitchen faucet only emitted a “slow drip.” 

Although it was a three-bedroom home, “only the master bedroom had a bed 

that contained a soiled mattress topper” and that belonged to Mother. The foam 

mattress was soiled with “different substances,” including urine. The master 

bedroom had several trash bags filled with soiled clothes all over the floor. Whitely 

did not see any beds in the home for the children or anything the children could have 

used as beds.

Whitely did not believe that the home was a safe environment for the children. 

She said it was “unlivable” and “horrible,” and not acceptable for any child to live 

in. After inspecting the home, Whitely went to her car to wait for Mother to return.

At some point, Whitely tried to return to the home, but when she knocked on the 

door, the children turned out the lights and refused to answer the door. Whitely

called the police for assistance. 
10

Mike answered the door when Whitely and a deputy constable knocked on the 

door around 10:30 p.m. According to Whitely, several hours had passed since she 

arrived at the house, and Mother was still not home. 

Mike told Whitely that Mother had left the house on Friday morning. He told 

her he made noodles for the children that day and explained that the house looked 

the way it did because Mother had taken in some unruly cousins who broke the 

children’s beds. According to Whitely, Mike had a “foul odor on his body,” and his 

hair was “extremely matted.” He told Whitely that he had been suffering from a 

toothache for two weeks and the children had not been in school for a “few months.”

Whitely tried to talk to Julie, but Julie “did not want to say what was going on 

at her home.” According to Whitely, Julie appeared to have been coached on what

to say to the Department. Julie first insisted that Mother was at work, but she later 

claimed that Mother had gone out to eat. Whitely also tried to talk with Jack, John, 

Mark, and Ivan, but they would not answer Whitely’s questions. Ivan was dirty and 

wearing a soiled diaper. 

Whitely tried unsuccessfully to contact Mother several times while she was at 

the home.

3

 According to Whitely, there was one cell phone in the home, and 

although the cell phone did not have any service, the children could use the 

neighbors’ WiFi to FaceTime with Mother when she was away. The children, 

3 Whitley unsuccessfully attempted to contact Father J. 
11

however, did not know how to reach Mother that day because Mother frequently 

called from random numbers. Whitely called some of the random numbers and she 

was able to reach one of the children’s maternal uncles (“Uncle K”). Uncle K and 

three other family members arrived at the home twenty minutes later. Whitely 

testified that Uncle K was unaware the children were living in such conditions and 

he began “crying with the children.” 

Mother called Uncle K an hour and a half after he arrived at the house. After 

Uncle K gave his phone to Whitely, Whitely explained to Mother her concerns with 

the home and the circumstances in which she found the children. Mother told 

Whitely that she could not come home then because she was styling someone’s hair.

According to Whitely, Mother seemed unconcerned that law enforcement and the 

Department were at her home, until Whitely told Mother that the children would be 

removed due to the environment and because no caregiver was present. According 

to Whitely, it took her four hours to contact Mother.

Mother, who arrived home twenty-five minutes after speaking to Whitely, was 

dropped off at the home by an unknown man driving a Dodge Challenger. 

According to Whitely, Mother’s Porsche and Lincoln Navigator were parked in the 

driveway. Whitely testified that Mother was well-dressed, “well-kept,” her hair was 

done, her clothes were clean, and she was odor free.
12

Whitely testified that Mother was very aggressive, and she did not appear to 

be concerned with the condition of the home. According to Whitely, Mother claimed 

that someone watched the children when she was out and that they had food in the 

home. She also claimed the whole incident was a lie and she accused the Department 

of “just want[ing] to take her children.” According to Whitely, Mother “downplayed 

the home conditions and said they were remodeling the home.” Whitely testified 

that remodeling would not account for the rat and roach infestation, the lack of food, 

or the condition of the sinks and toilet.

Mother was arrested at the scene for child endangerment and abandonment,

and the children were taken into the Department’s care. When Whitely asked 

Mother for names for potential relative placements, Mother suggested Uncle K. 

Although Uncle K wanted to care for the children, he was not an appropriate 

placement because he did not have identification and he was living in a third-party’s 

home. Whitely testified that, after Julie was in the Department’s care, Julie accused 

Uncle K of sexual abuse. Although the Department first approved for the children 

to be placed with their maternal grandmother, the Department found the possible 

placement inappropriate after it learned the maternal grandmother and a person 

living in her home had a case pending with the Department. Whitely later learned 

that while they were in the Department’s care, the children made allegations of 

physical abuse against their maternal grandmother. 
13

Whitely testified that the children were removed from Mother’s care because 

the home was unlivable, Mother had left the children alone overnight, there was no 

food in the home, it took four hours for Mother to come home and she did so only 

after Whitely told her that she was preparing to remove the children, and the children 

had not been in school for months. According to Whitely, Mother often left the 

children home alone and, in this instance, the children had been left alone at home 

for a day or two before they were removed. Whitely testified that Mike was fourteen, 

and while she agreed that the children could be left home alone with a fifteen or 

sixteen-year-old, they could not be left with a teenager overnight. Whitely testified 

there was no food in the home, the children were hungry, and they told her they had 

not eaten since the previous day. Whitely did not believe that the children’s weight 

was appropriate for their ages, and she fed the children before she removed them. 

After they were removed from Mother’s home, the children were cleaned up 

at Kinder Shelter. While they were getting cleaned, and afterward, Whitely saw old 

scars, marks, and bruises on the children. 

On January 31, 2022, Department Supervisor Teresa Cruz spoke with Mike 

and Julie. Mike and Julie told Cruz that Mother had left the home on Friday morning 

and had not returned until Sunday night after Whitely and police arrived at the home. 

They told her that Mother left them alone at home all the time and she had not been 

home much in the past six months. According to Mike and Julie, Mother would 
14

leave for a few days, return for a few days, and then leave again. Mike and Julie 

told Sanchez it was difficult to contact Mother at times and they did not know which 

phone number to call because Mother’s phone was broken. Mike did not know 

where Mother worked and neither he nor Julie knew whether Mother worked days 

or nights. Mike told Sanchez that Mother went to cosmetology school in the 

morning.

Mike and Julie told Sanchez that Ivan’s father, Father J, was not around much

and “it’s a good thing.” Mike said that Father J abused Mother and he had seen 

Father J hit Mother. Mike and Julie stated that they did not talk to Father Y’s family 

because they are all “crack heads.” 

Mike and Julie said the house did not always look so bad. Mike said that they 

always had running water and Mother’s friend had looked at the toilet and sink the 

previous day. Mike and Julie stated that the beds had been removed from the home 

because several months earlier, their cousins had broken the beds. Mike said that 

some of his brothers had cut up the mattresses. 

Mike and Julie stated they were responsible for cleaning the home, taking care 

of the younger children, and feeding everyone. Ivan would stop crying only if Julie 

picked him up. Mike and Julie said that Mother would order food for the children, 

but it would not last because the children would eat it too quickly. Mike and Julie
15

stated that if they had done a better job cleaning, they would not have been removed 

from Mother. 

Whitely stated that according to Mother, Mike, and Julie, the children were 

homeschooled. Although there were five school-aged children in the home, the 

home had only one laptop, and it required the use of the neighbor’s WiFi. Asked 

how six children could be homeschooled with only one computer, Mike and Julie

stated that Ivan had broken a laptop and a tablet. 

Mike and Julie said they rarely went outside the home and that Mother did not

take them out. Mike had told Mother two weeks earlier that his tooth had been 

hurting, but she had done nothing. Whitely testified that the children did not want 

to be in that home. 

Whitely testified that after she completed her investigation, Mike and Julie 

made outcries of sexual and physical abuse. Julie stated that she had been sexually 

abused by two of her maternal uncles and Mike alleged that Mother had physically 

abused him. Mike said he “got the worst” of the abuse when the children did 

anything to upset Mother, and that Mother kicked him in his stomach because she 

believed he had stolen money from her. Mother also hit Mike in the head with a belt

buckle. According to Mike, one of Mother’s male friends urged Mother to go easier 

on Mike. Julie agreed that Mother “beat on” Mike worse than the other children.
16

2. Victoria Martinez

The children’s conservatorship caseworker Victoria Martinez testified that 

Mike is fifteen years old, Julie is fourteen years old, Jack is twelve years old, John 

is eleven years old, Mark is eight years old, and Ivan is four years old. Father Y, 

who is deceased, is father to Julie, Jack, John, and Mark. All four children were 

placed with their paternal grandmother S.M. (“Grandmother”). Ivan, whose father 

is Father J, was also placed with Grandmother. And Mike was placed with his father, 

Father G. 

On May 15, 2023, Julie, Jack, John, and Mark were removed from 

Grandmother’s home and placed in an emergency shelter. Martinez testified that 

although the Department was searching for a more desirable placement, the children

had attended school for two weeks before summer break and their basic needs were 

being met in the shelter. Ivan was removed from Grandmother’s home the same day 

as his siblings and he was placed in a special needs foster home.

Martinez testified that Mother’s sister J.K. (“Aunt K”), was being considered 

for possible placement. According to Martinez, Aunt K had taken two drug tests 

since May 15, 2023. For the first test, Aunt K refused to provide a hair sample and 

her urine test was negative. At the time of Martinez’s testimony, the Department 

had not yet received the results of Aunt K’s second drug test. 
17

Martinez testified that after coming into the Department’s care, the children 

appeared to be happier, they ate more, attended school, their grades improved, their 

dental and medical needs improved, and they just “enjoy[ed] being children.”

Martinez testified that Mike, who was diagnosed with ADHD after he was 

removed from Mother’s care, is in the tenth grade, and has participated in football, 

basketball, tennis, and baseball. When Mike came into care, he needed intensive 

dental work, he was suffering from a toothache, and he was behind on his 

immunizations. 

Mike was placed with Father G in August 2022. According to Martinez, Mike 

is bonded with Father G, Father G is meeting all of Mike’s needs, and the 

Department does not have any concerns about Father G or Mike’s placement with 

him. Martinez testified that, after the Department determined Father G was Mike’s 

biological father, Father G had “done everything that he needs to do to make sure” 

Mike is safe.4 

Martinez testified that, on February 25, 2023, Mike visited with Mother in a 

Wal-Mart parking lot without Father G’s permission. This concerned the 

Department because Mike had experienced extensive abuse and neglect when he was 

with Mother, and if the Department were to approve any visits between Mike and 

Mother, such visits would have to be monitored. The Department also was 

4 Mike’s birth certificate identified Father J as his father.
18

concerned because after Mike visited with Mother, he became “more defiant and 

skipping classes to be with his girlfriend, or not listening to his father,” and his 

grades suffered. Martinez testified that Mother had been giving Mike junk food and 

she was paying Mike to act out in Father G’s home. The Department was concerned 

that Mother’s relationship with Mike could undermine Father G’s parenting 

decisions. When asked if Mike wanted to maintain a relationship with Mother, 

Martinez testified that Mike told her “he was just going to wait until he was out of

[the Department’s care] in order to have that contact with his mother because he did 

not want to get in trouble anymore and get his phone taken away.”

Martinez testified that Julie, who is fourteen years old, is a ninth grader and 

she has performed adequately in school. Julie was diagnosed with anxiety and 

oppositional defiant disorder. Julie has not visited with Mother.

Jack is twelve years old and in the seventh grade. Martinez testified that after 

he came into care, Jack was diagnosed with ADHD, major depressive disorder, 

generalized anxiety disorder, and “mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.” 

Jack, who is taking medication, has been seeing his therapist, Dr. Lacy, since January 

2023, and he is bonded with her. Martinez does not believe that Jack has been in 

communication with Mother.

John is eleven years old and in the fifth grade. Martinez testified that John 

was diagnosed with ADHD specified trauma and “stress-related disorder due to 
19

multiple transitions” after he came into care. Like Jack, John was also taking 

medication and seeing Dr. Lacy for therapy.

Mark is eight years old. He is in the second grade and doing fine in school.

Ivan is four years old. According to the Department’s April 2023 permanency

report, Ivan is “sweet natured and very quiet,” and although he is mostly non-verbal, 

he “comes alive when there is music and opportunities to dance.” He was diagnosed 

with autism on October 6, 2022. Martinez testified that Ivan had been in daycare 

after he came into the Department’s care, but he recently started attending Pre-K. 

Although he is mostly nonverbal, Ivan had started saying “a few words” and singing 

songs. 

According to the April 2023 permanency report, Ivan “display[ed] clear signs 

of a child of neglect (disconnected, continually awaiting instruction, needing 

continual guidance and instruction in play, had to be taught to close his eyes for naps 

and prayer before meals, etc.).” He was diagnosed with “phase of life problem” and 

neglect on March 12, 2022, and the report states that “being in a stable and 

supportive environment is critical for [Ivan’s] development.” The report reflects that 

Ivan had “significant cognitive delays,” he needed “a comprehensive languagebased program in order to make progress with his severe delays,” and he received 

speech and occupational therapy while in the Department’s care. Martinez testified 
20

that anyone adopting Ivan would be eligible for adoption subsidies to help provide 

for Ivan’s care. Ivan was also diagnosed with encephalopathy. 

As for Ivan’s dental health, the report states that Ivan had “fairly extensive

[dental] work done prior due to neglect in the home of origin,” and his first foster 

parent noticed that he “would take his food and stuff all the way to his back teeth to 

chew in the back because the front teeth appeared to be in such pain.” The dental 

care he received while in foster care appears to have resolved his pain.

According to Martinez, Ivan was placed at a specialized foster home after he 

was removed from Grandmother’s home and Ivan’s needs are being met in his new 

placement. Ivan was wearing a diaper when he came into the Department’s care, and 

his potty-training is progressing well in his foster placement. 

Martinez testified the children made outcries of physical and sexual abuse 

after they came into the Department’s care. According to Martinez, Jack and Mark 

told her that Mother “used to whip them constantly with an extension cord,” and 

when she grew tired of hitting them, Mother made them “stand in the corner for 

hours.” Ivan was the only child that did not get whipped. According to the boys, 

their maternal grandmother would also discipline them by making them stand in the 

corner for hours. Martinez testified that she saw marks and bruises on all the 

children. Julie reported that Mother’s brothers sexually abused her when she was 

nine or ten years old, and Mother knew about the abuse. 
21

The Department asked the court to terminate Mother’s rights to Julie, Jack, 

John, Mark, and Ivan and to appoint the Department as the children’s permanent 

managing conservator. When asked why she believed it was in the best interest of 

the children for Mother’s parental rights as to Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan to 

be terminated, Martinez testified:

It’s in the best interest of the children just due to the lack of—that 

[Mother] has not alleviated any of the Department’s concerns. [Mother]

continues to deny any neglect and abuse took place, even though the 

children are covered in scars. The children have discussed the physical 

abuse [by Mother.]

. . .

The children have expressed abuse and neglect that took place in 

[Mother’s] home. They expressed that they were starved or didn’t 

receive any meals, some days that they would fight over the food that 

was left. They would have to steal for food. The children deserve 

permanency. They deserve a loving home. They deserve an education, 

deserve friends, to go out. . . .

They deserve to act as children, to not have to supervise each other’s 

siblings, and just a stable home that’s willing to care for them longterm, willing to work with them and their special needs, to keep up with 

their medical and dental appointments. And [Mother] did not address 

those needs while they were in her care. [Mother] has gone against [the 

Department] to visit with [Mike] unsupervised. So the [Department] 

sees that it’s in the best interest that [Mother’s] rights are terminated 

due to all those factors.

Martinez testified that, unlike his siblings, the Department’s goal for Mike was

family reunification with Father G. The Department asked the trial court to appoint 
22

Father G as Mike’s primary managing conservator and Mother as Mike’s possessory 

conservator.5

(1) Mother’s Family Service Plan

Martinez testified that the Department created a family service plan (“FSP”) 

for Mother. Mother’s FSP was filed with the court on April 22, 2022, and made an 

order of the court. In the FSP, the Department identified several concerns it had with 

respect to Mother and the children, including the fact that none of the school-aged 

children had been in school for two years, which required an assessment of their 

educational needs.

According to the FSP, Mike was beginning to show emotional and behavioral 

issues. He had been removed from his initial foster home due to possible theft, he 

had difficulties with peer relationships, and his relationship with Mother was

questionable because he had not asked to visit with Mother. The Department was 

also concerned about Julie’s emotional and behavioral health because she often 

looked to Mike for verbal and non-verbal prompts before responding to questions 

and she was guarded around her foster family. 

5 Martinez did not specifically testify that the Department wanted the court to appoint 

Father G as Mike’s primary managing conservator and Mother as Mike’s possessory 

conservator. This was argued in closing. Martinez testified that the Department’s 

goal for Mike was family reunification with Father G, and she stated on crossexamination that the Department was not requesting that Mother’s rights be 

terminated. 
23

Jack’s, John’s, and Mark’s emotional and behavioral health were also of 

concern. According to the FSP, Jack was diagnosed with neglect, physical abuse, 

and adjustment disorder after he came into the Department’s care, and he was 

attending mental health counseling. John, who had been diagnosed with physical 

abuse and adjustment disorder, was attending mental health counseling. Mark had 

been diagnosed with neglect, physical abuse, and adjustment disorder and he was 

also attending mental health counseling.

The Department was also concerned about Ivan, who was delayed in his 

physical and cognitive development. When he came into the Department’s care, 

Ivan was three years old and non-verbal. The FSP recommended that Ivan receive 

speech, occupational, and play therapy. The FSP also states that Ivan’s pottytraining and speech delays were due to “trauma.” Ivan was doing well with his foster 

family. 

The FSP noted that Mother had not been providing for the children’s basic

needs because the children did not have adequate food, water, sleeping

arrangements, or supervision when they were in Mother’s care. According to the 

FSP, Mother was not present to supervise the children, she had an inadequate support 

system, and she had shown a lack of parenting knowledge by keeping her children 

out of school and leaving a fourteen-year-old to supervise five younger children. 
24

The goal of the FSP was for Mother to supervise the children, provide 

appropriate discipline when needed, and provide them with a safe environment free 

from abuse or neglect. The FSP states that Mother’s progress under the FSP would 

be measured by three criteria, including whether: (1) Mother completed the required 

tasks/services; 2) achieved the FSP’s goals; and 3) provided for the children’s 

ongoing safety and wellbeing.

(2) Requirements of Mother’s FSP

Martinez testified that Mother’s FSP required Mother to (1) maintain stable 

housing for at least six months, (2) provide proof of all income every month, (3) sign 

a release of information, (4) participate in parenting classes, (5) participate in a 

psychological assessment and follow all recommendations, (6) participate in 

individual counseling, (7) maintain a positive support system, (8) participate in 

random drug testing, and (9) participate in a substance abuse assessment. Martinez 

testified that although Mother had completed most of her services, she had not 

satisfied the housing and income requirements in the FSP. 

Mother’s FSP required her to secure stable housing for a minimum of six 

months consecutively and throughout the duration of the case. According to an April 

2023 permanency report prepared by the Department, Mother told the Department 

in June 2022 that she was moving out of her old home on July 1, 2022, but that she 

did not yet have a new address. In July 2022, Mother told the Department that she 
25

was living with a friend, but she did not provide the caseworker with the address. 

While Mother told the Department in October 2022 that she was “closer to the down 

payment for her home and will be sending lease and proof of utilities,” she did not 

send a lease or provide an address until February 2023, when Mother provided the 

Department with “a copy of her lease and her address.” According to the report, in 

March 2023, Mother told the Department she was living in Crockett, Texas and 

although she provided them with an address, Mother did not provide the Department 

with an updated lease.

Martinez testified that Mother provided her with a month-to-month lease

while the case was pending, and, on May 5, 2023, Mother provided Martinez with a 

two-year residential lease that commenced on February 1, 2023. Martinez went to 

the address reflected on the two-year lease that same day, but Mother did not allow 

Martinez to come inside. According to Martinez, Mother told her she did not feel 

“comfortable” letting Martinez in because the new home was not up to “the standards 

that she wished for everyone to see.” Mother told Martinez she “wanted [the house]

in the best condition for [the Department] and her children to be returned home.” 

Martinez testified that she saw a man and his son at the home, even though Mother 

claimed she lived alone.

On May 19, 2023, Martinez and Jane Piaskowski from Child Advocates 

visited Mother’s new home. Martinez testified that the cleanliness of Mother’s home 
26

was a concern when the children came into care, and although Mother’s new home 

was cluttered, it was much better than the old home. According to Martinez, the

closet in Mother’s home was cluttered, there were clothes all over the floor and in 

the garage, and there were “two large trash bags full of trash, open, with like little 

gnats flying around them.” Mother told Martinez she was waiting for the trash pickup day, but Martinez felt the amount of trash was excessive. Martinez admitted that 

it was common for closets to be cluttered and that clutter in a closet did not pose a 

substantial danger or harm to the children. 

According to Martinez, one bedroom had a queen-size bed frame but no 

mattress, the second bedroom had a twin bunkbed with one mattress, and the master 

bedroom had a queen bed frame with a mattress on the floor. She saw nothing in the 

home that posed a potential threat to the children if they were returned to Mother. 

Martinez also saw men’s cologne and a man’s prescription bottle in Mother’s home 

despite Mother’s claim that she lived alone. 

While a photograph Mother took depicted a salon inside the home, Martinez 

testified that she saw only a barber chair and an unattached hair dryer in the garage. 

Martinez testified that the photographs Mother provided of the home did not 

accurately depict what the home looked like when Martinez walked through it, and 

she was concerned Mother’s photographs could be “misleading.” Martinez testified 
27

that she took photographs when she visited Mother’s new home, but Martinez did 

not provide them to the Department’s attorney.

With respect to the FSP’s requirement that Mother provide the Department 

with proof of all sources of income on a monthly basis, the Department’s April 2023 

permanency report stated that Mother told the Department in April 2022 that she 

was a cosmetologist, and she did hair on the side. Mother also claimed she did 

“stocks, real estate and [that she was] in law school.” On May 2, 2022, the 

Department asked Mother to provide check stubs reflecting her income, and Mother 

reiterated that “her primary method of earning money [was] through her 

cosmetology practice.” In June 2022, the Department asked Mother to provide “a 

receipt book to get an estimate of the mother’s income for the month, but she stated 

that she [wa]s working on it.” In July 2022, Mother told the Department that she 

had finished cosmetology school and opened her own hair salon, but she did not 

provide any proof of her income from June 2022 to September 2022. In October 

2022, Mother told the Department “she ha[d] salon income and could submit 

paperwork for it, but Mother did not provide the caseworker with “pay stubs or proof 

of income” in October 2022, November 2022, or December 2022. In January 2023, 

Mother gave the caseworker paystubs from Red Lobster. According to the report, 

Mother did not provide the caseworker with any recent paystubs or proof of income 

in March 2023.
28

Martinez testified that on May 5, 2023, Mother told the Department that she 

owns a Porsche. She also provided Martinez with Cash App screen shots from 

February 2023, March 2023, and April 2023, and a statement of income Mother said 

was prepared by her bookkeeper and accountant. Martinez testified that the Cash 

App screen shots reflected a balance of $400 in February, $1,000 in March, and 

about $3,000 in April. Although Mother told Martinez that she was a self-employed 

hairstylist, Martinez testified she could not verify that the sums reflected on the Cash 

App screen shots represented money Mother earned through her hair styling job. 

Mother also did not provide Martinez with information reflecting her 2022 income. 

According to Martinez, the records Mother provided failed to demonstrate Mother 

had stable income for six months because the records only went back to February 

2023. 

Mother’s FSP also required her to complete individual counseling. Martinez 

testified that although Mother had completed individual counseling, Martinez had 

no reason to believe that Mother knew how to change her behavior because,

[Mother] fails to address that she physically abused the children, that 

the children were left in an unlivable home. So if the children were to 

be returned to her, she doesn’t know how to change that behavior. It’s 

always going to remain the same because she never properly addressed 

it in therapy. She doesn’t believe what happened was wrong or that she 

left the children like that.

Martinez also testified that as it concerns the FSP’s drug testing requirements, 

Mother submitted to drug testing through the pendency of the case, and she 
29

completed a substance abuse assessment. Martinez testified that while Mother’s 

urine test in April 2023 tested negative,

6 Mother’s most recent hair follicle test and 

urine test, taken after May 15, 2023, both tested positive. According to Martinez, 

Mother’s most recent positive drug test results were concerning to the Department 

because Mother tested positive after she was successfully discharged from substance 

abuse treatment on May 9, 2023. The Department was also concerned because 

Mother’s drug usage was an issue when the children came into care, and Mother 

“continues to deny usage of drugs but continues to test positive in her urine and 

hair.” The record reflects that, between April 6, 2022, and February 1, 2023, Mother 

failed or refused to submit to thirteen drug tests, all of which the trial court presumed 

were positive. Although the urine sample Mother provided on February 1, 2023 

tested negative, Mother refused to submit a hair sample on the same day, which 

under the FSP is presumed as a positive test result. Between May 11, 2022, and June 

20, 2023, Mother submitted nine urine and hair samples that tested positive for 

marijuana or marijuana metabolites. Although the urine sample Mother submitted 

on May 16, 2023 tested negative, the test was invalid because the sample Mother 

submitted was diluted. 

Martinez testified that Mother was charged with abandonment when the 

children were removed from her care, but the charge was dismissed due to 

6 Mother was not required to provide a hair follicle sample.
30

insufficient evidence. An order prohibiting Mother from having any contact with 

the children was issued due to Mother’s criminal charge, but Martinez did not recall 

if the order had been issued by the trial court. The order was lifted when the 

abandonment charge was dismissed. Martinez testified the Department did not 

schedule any visits between Mother and the children after the no-contact order was 

lifted because the “therapist did not recommend it.” When asked about Mother’s 

claim that even though she attempted to provide support for the children, the 

Department told her she could not do so, Martinez testified that Mother had never 

attempted to provide support for the children. Martinez was not aware of any support 

system Mother had created, which was also required by her FSP. 

When asked why the Department’s concerns had not been alleviated by 

Mother’s substantial completion of her FSP, Martinez testified:

Because during therapy, [Mother] continues to deny the children were 

ever neglected or abused by her. They were never starved. She never 

left them home alone for week– for days at a time. She never admitted 

any of that.

According to Martinez, the goal of the FSP was for Mother to complete the services, 

show “changed behavior,” and alleviate the Department’s concerns. Despite her 

work on her FSP, Mother never alleviated the Department’s concerns that led to the 

children’s removal from her care. 
31

3. Jane Piaskowski, Child Advocates 

Jane Piaskowski with Child Advocates is the guardian ad litem for the five 

youngest children: Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan. Piaskowski testified that she 

attended all hearings in the case, met with Mother, and visited with the children 

several times. According to Piaskowski, the children improved after being removed 

from Mother’s home. 

Piaskowski testified that the children’s dental health was bad when they came 

into the Department’s care. Their dental records “showed that the children needed 

a very intensive level of dental care in order to get them to a place where they were 

pain free and able to develop normally.” The four school-aged children—Julie, Jack, 

John, and Mark—struggled when they were first enrolled in school, but they made 

friends and seemed happy to be back in a formal educational environment. They 

had a big adjustment to the work and reading required. The children mentioned both 

sexual and physical abuse. Piaskowski testified that some of the children told her it 

was nice to have their own bed and not be hungry. The children also expressed to 

her that they were bonded to one another and wanted to stay together.

After Julie, Jack, John, and Mark were removed from Grandmother’s home in 

May 2023, they were placed in an emergency shelter. Piaskowski testified that she 

had visited with the children since their most recent placement, and she agreed with 

Martinez that the children’s basic needs were being met. The children had been in 
32

the emergency placement for about a month and Piaskowski knew of no potential 

non-relative placements that could take all the children and keep them together. 

Piaskowski testified that Aunt K wanted to take Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan, 

and she was a possible placement.

Piaskowski testified that the children blamed themselves for the problems at 

home and the older children took “personal responsibility” for coming into care. The 

older children had talked about taking care of the home and the younger kids, and 

Julie believed that she could have done a better job. The children told Piaskowski 

that sometimes there was food in the home, and sometimes the children would fight 

over food. Piaskowski testified that some of the children accused their siblings of 

eating too much, and the younger children blamed themselves for eating too much. 

When asked if Child Advocates was concerned that the children blamed 

themselves for the circumstances that led to their removal from Mother’s home, 

Piaskowski testified:

It’s something where they’re—we’re trying to help them just be kids. 

They’ve been through a lot even just coming into care. And so it’s 

something that we try to emphasize with them in terms of their

responsibilities as a kid are really relevant to their personal hygiene and 

behavior and education, and not to take sort of a lot of the problems that 

the adults or other people in their lives onto their shoulders, but they 

seem to be—they bring up a lot about how they can change and they 

can go back with their mom and that their mom needs them. And it 

seems like they don’t have an understanding that a lot of that was not 

their responsibility to begin with.
33

Piaskowski testified that even though the children expressed a desire to 

communicate with Mother or return to her care, this seemed to be related to the 

children “taking accountability for their personal situation being in foster care.” 

According to Piaskowski, the children appeared to believe that “their family life 

before they came into care was normal, and they would like to return to all being 

together with their siblings, and that there wasn't anything in their mind that was 

different than usual from their lived experience.” 

Piaskowski testified that the children told her they love Mother, they want to 

be reunited with Mother, and they feel that Mother needs them. When asked if the 

children “feel that their mom loves them,” Piaskowski testified that she assumed the 

children felt that way. According to Piaskowski, it was concerning that the children 

wanted to return to Mother because the children believed that Mother needed them 

and not because they needed Mother.

With respect to Ivan, Piaskowski testified that Ivan was developmentally 

delayed when he came into the Department’s care but had made progress and was 

“doing very well” in his current placement. According to Piaskowski, Ivan “ha[d]

started to express a little bit more verbally and has been a lot more responsive 

especially to children his own age in terms of socialization.” Piaskowski testified 

there are other children in Ivan’s current home that “he connects with, and when I 

visited him he seemed to be very happy and doing very well and has continued to 
34

progress with his speech, and his potty training is staying on track.” Ivan, who was 

three years old when he came into the Department’s care, started attending daycare 

while living in his most recent placement. Piaskowski testified that the other four 

children had also adjusted well to their current placement, and she believes that the 

children’s current placements are meeting their needs.

Addressing Mother’s FSP, Piaskowski testified that during the pendency of 

the case, she remained concerned about Mother’s desire to complete her FSP 

because she had not submitted to drug testing regularly or provided proof of 

employment or stable housing. Piaskowski testified Mother had only partially 

completed her FSP because although she had completed individual therapy, 

substance abuse therapy, parenting classes, and submitted to a psychological 

assessment, Mother had not provided proof of stable housing for six months, 

provided proof of income, or satisfied the drug testing requirement. 

When asked about the FSP’s requirement that Mother provide the Department 

with evidence of all sources of income for herself and her children on a monthly 

basis, Piaskowski testified that Mother had provided a business lease, but when 

Piaskowski went to the address listed on the lease on March 28, 2023, the “area was 

vacant.” According to the building’s management, Mother had an “established lease 

there for her salon from. . . July to October of 2022,” but Mother had abandoned the 

property and she owed two months of unpaid rent.
35

When asked if she had seen evidence that Mother was running a hair salon in 

her home, Piaskowski testified that she had not seen such evidence because the 

stylist chair in Mother’s home was in the garage and the Cash App records Mother 

provided did not show she had been earning money as a hair stylist. According to 

Piaskowski, the Cash App records merely showed the balance on the account. 

Piaskowski testified she had not seen proof that Mother had been employed for six 

months and she was not confident that Mother could meet the children’s basic needs 

if returned to her. Mother also provided paystubs from a part-time job dated 

November 2022. 

On cross-examination, Piaskowski testified she had seen Mother’s 

cosmetology license and she believed that Mother had the ability to earn an income 

and support herself. When asked about Mother’s ability to support the children, 

Piaskowski testified that she saw beds for the children when she visited Mother’s 

home. 

Piaskowski testified that Mother’s FSP also required her to demonstrate six 

months of stable housing. According to Piaskowski, the case was initially scheduled 

for trial in March 2023. In March 2023, Mother told Child Advocates she was living 

in an apartment, and she provided them with a copy of the lease. On March 28, 

2023, Piaskowski and Martinez went to the address listed on the lease but there was 

“no one by her name at that address” and the leasing manager for the apartment 
36

complex informed them “they had no records of anyone by [Mother’s] name living 

there.” 

Mother provided a lease for her current home, but Piaskowski and Martinez 

could not visit Mother’s new home until May 19, 2023. Piaskowski testified that 

she agreed with Martinez’s description of the home. Piaskowski admitted that 

Mother had stable housing since February 2023, and she agreed that Mother’s living 

conditions had “significantly changed for the better” since the children had come 

into the Department’s care in January 2022.

With respect to the FSP’s requirement that Mother submit to random drug 

tests and, if she tested positive, to complete substance abuse services, Piaskowski 

testified that Mother’s substance abuse assessment recommended substance abuse 

education. Despite being in treatment, Mother often refused to submit to drugtesting. 

According to Piaskowski, Mother never acknowledged that she physically 

abused her children or that the children’s maternal grandmother physically abused 

her children. She also never acknowledged that her brother had sexually assaulted 

Julie, “that the condition in the home the children were removed from was 

deplorable,” “the children did not have enough food,” or that “she abandoned the 

children for days at a time.” According to Piaskowski, Child Advocates was 
37

concerned that Mother had not acknowledged these problems and it made it difficult 

to assess whether Mother had corrected the problems. 

Piaskowski testified Child Advocates had considered recommending therapy 

for Mother and the children, but they decided against it because “the children's 

therapist at the time stated that it would not be productive to the children's current 

health and well-being in their current placement to begin having contact with their 

mother again.”

Piaskowski testified that Child Advocates was recommending that Mother’s 

parental rights to the children be terminated, and the children be placed in “an 

unrelated permanent placement with the goal of adoption to give them some 

permanency.” When asked why Child Advocates was recommending an unrelated 

adoption for the children, Piaskowski testified, 

Through a variety of factors that have influenced this case over the 

course of a year and a half. Many of the options for placement, related 

and unrelated, have changed. At this time it appears that all of the roads 

that we as Child Advocates and that [the Department] have gone down 

to try to accomplish the previous goal of family reunification, and then 

the other alternative goal of relative or fictive kin conservatorship did 

not pan out. And, so, at this time we are pursuing our current goal of 

unrelated adoption.

With regard to the children’s aunt, [Aunt K], Piakowski testified that 

the first time [Aunt K] asked to be considered for placement “the 

process was started but was not able to be completed due to her lack of 

willingness to take a drug test” and the aunt recently refused to take a 

hair follicle test.
38

4. Mother

(1) Reasons for Removal

Mother testified that Mike, Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan were removed 

from her home because someone reported seeing a suspicious person when Mike 

and Jack were walking to Sonic, and the police took Mike and Jack to Mother’s 

home when she was not present. Mother denied that there were concerns with the 

condition of the home that led to the children’s removal from her care. She admitted, 

however, that Whitely told her she was concerned about what she saw in Mother’s 

home. 

Mother testified that she was at school studying to be a cosmetologist when 

the police found the boys walking to Sonic. Mother also testified that she was 

braiding someone’s hair when she received the call from Whitely. According to 

Mother, the Department was able to get in touch with her immediately when the 

children were removed from her home. When asked if the Department had made 

several unsuccessful efforts to contact her before finally reaching her, Mother 

testified that she answered the first phone call she received, and the call was from 

Whitely. Mother testified that she immediately tried to find a way home because 

she had left her Porsche at home, and she was home no more than forty-five minutes 

after receiving the call. 
39

When she arrived at the home, Mother was arrested and charged with child 

abandonment. She was not allowed to go inside the home or speak to the children. 

Mother denied that she left the children home alone and claimed that she left her 

“Uncle Phil” in charge of the children. According to Mother, Uncle Phil had been 

painting the home while she was out, and he left shortly before the Department

arrived. Uncle Phil was not a member of the children’s family, and Mother did not 

know Uncle Phil’s real name other than his first name was Sherman.7 Mother denied 

having sex with Uncle Phil or anyone else in front of the children. She was surprised 

to hear that Mike said no one had been to the home in months. 

With respect to the conditions inside the home, Mother testified that the 

photographs Whitely took did not accurately depict the home. Mother testified she 

was leasing the home with an option to buy it and the family had been living there 

for about two years when the children were removed. She started remodeling the 

interior of the home in late January 2021 because it needed new paint, new carpet, 

and some work done in the kitchen. 

Mother, who agreed that it was her responsibility to keep a hygienic residence 

for the children, claimed the home always had running water, WIFI, electricity, and 

7 According to Mother, “Uncle Phil comes from like the Fresh Prince. It’s a term like 

a mentor that helps out with the family.” 
40

gas and she denied that the home was infested with bugs or rodents. Although 

Mother had seen a few roaches, there were no rats in the home. 

With regard to the lack of beds for the children in the home, Mother testified 

that there were seven beds in her home when the children were removed from her 

care. She claimed that most of the furniture had been moved into the garage so that 

they could paint and install new carpeting. Mother testified that Mike’s statement 

that there was only one bed in the home was not true and that the photographs 

depicting only one bed in the home for the children to share were inaccurate 

depictions. But Mother also later testified that she and all six children slept in her 

room on her California king microfiber bed while they were remodeling the home.

When asked if she was concerned that the Department observed “feces in the 

sink and the toilet,” Mother testified that she was concerned about the situation in 

the children’s bathroom and claimed it had only been in that condition for a week

and that another bathroom in the home was working. Mother stated the toilet in the 

children’s bathroom was clogged because Ivan had flushed his diaper. When Mother 

tried to plunge the toilet, “it backed up into the sink,” so she called someone with 

more experience to fix it. Mother testified that although it was an older home and 

there were some issues with the home when they moved in, they did not have any 

problems with the plumbing until Ivan flushed his diaper down the toilet. Mother 

said the contractors broke the sink. 
41

Mother agreed that it was her responsibility to ensure that the children had 

enough food to eat and she disputed the allegation there was no food in the home. 

Mother testified that the home was stocked with food when the children were 

removed. Although it was normally kept in the kitchen, Mother put all food items 

in the master bedroom closet because the kitchen was being remodeled. She claimed 

that she also “made arrangements for the children to eat” and had food delivered. 

Mother testified that the children could text and call her when she was gone, and the 

children did not tell her they were hungry the day they were removed. Mother knew

that the children pooled their piggy bank money to buy food for themselves, but she 

did not know Mike was concerned that Ivan would starve to death. 

When asked about the injuries and scars the Department had observed on 

Mike and Mark, Mother denied causing the boys’ injuries and she disputed Mike’s 

and Mark’s statements that she was responsible for the marks on their bodies. She 

testified the boys’ allegations were untrue. Mother testified that the substantial 

scarring on Mike’s back was from football. 

When asked if she recalled the photographs previously admitted during a 

show cause hearing reflecting Mark’s injuries, Mother testified she did not recall 

seeing any such photographs. She claimed she did not attend the show cause hearing

and she denied stating that Mark’s injuries were self-inflicted. The photographs of 

Mark’s injuries were admitted into evidence at trial. When asked about a large scar 
42

on Mark’s leg, Mother claims Mark had scratched his leg on a nail in the fence while 

he was playing football with his brothers. When asked about an injury to Mark’s 

large toe, Mother claimed Ivan had dropped a dumbbell on Mark’s foot. 

Mother was surprised to hear that the “children were reported to be very dirty, 

they smelled, and lot of their hair had to be cut because it was so matted.” Mother 

denied that their hair was matted and claimed she required the children to bathe and 

brush their teeth every day. Mother claimed she took the children to a dentist every 

six months or year. She admitted, however, that she “didn’t do the best job of the 

dentist appointments.” Mother did not know that Mark had seven cavities when he 

entered the Department’s care and that Mike and Julie also needed extensive dental 

work. When shown a photograph of the inside of Ivan’s mouth, Mother 

acknowledged there were some cavities visible to the naked eye. She disagreed that 

Ivan, who was three years old, was drooling significantly when he came into the 

Department’s care. She did not know that Ivan’s dentist stated Ivan had been 

drooling because he had an infection, and it was likely very painful for Ivan to eat.

Mother was also surprised to learn there were concerns about Jack’s hearing

because Jack had no trouble hearing when he lived with her. Mother knew Jack had 

an eraser removed from his ear and that it had been there for years, but she was 

unaware he had “bilateral wax in his ears which could have impacted his hearing.”
43

Mother testified that the children had been in Willis ISD until the end of the 

2018-19 school year. Mother began homeschooling the children in 2019. According 

to Mother, the children, who were in school about eight hours per day, would use a 

device with an “app that was at their grade level” to study English, math, science,

and history and their physical education consisted of various outdoor activities.

Mother testified that she had twelve devices for the children to use for home school, 

and that Mike’s statement that the children had to share one iPad for homeschooling 

was inaccurate. 

Mother testified that the children would use their homeschooling apps while 

she was at cosmetology school, and she could view the children’s school activity

through an app on her phone. Mother claimed that while she was away, her aunt, 

who was a teacher, would come by the home to check on the children and tutor them. 

Mike, however, reported that no one had been to the home for months. 

Mother testified that she was surprised to learn that Mike, Julie, Jack, John, 

and Mark struggled academically when they re-entered the school system after they 

were taken into the Department’s care. Mother acknowledged that Mike had always 

been more focused on sports, and he needed to be reminded continually about the 

importance of academics. But Mother was skeptical about Julie because Julie had 

always been an “overachiever.” 
44

Mother did not know that Mark had to repeat second grade due to deficits in 

reading and she was surprised to hear that Jack’s reading level was at least one year 

behind his peers. Mother claimed that Jack had caught up to his reading level in 

2019 while he was attending Willis ISD. Mother did not know that Jack had been 

diagnosed with dyslexia after coming into the Department’s care and that his 

academic performance had improved after receiving special accommodations in 

school. According to Mother, she had Jack tested for ADHD and dyslexia, and

although he was diagnosed with ADHD, the specialist determined he was not 

dyslexic. She also testified that Jack was the only one of her children with special 

medical needs. Mother testified that she would not continue to homeschool the 

children if they were returned to her, and she planned to enroll them in a twentyfour-hour daycare that is located close to her home.

Mother testified that Ivan “wasn’t nonverbal [while in her] custody” and she 

claimed he spoke in complete sentences. Mother believed that Ivan should have a 

relationship with Father J. Father J, however, did not visit Ivan while he was in the 

Department’s care or participate regularly in the case. The Department also had 

trouble maintaining contact with Father J. The record reflects that Father J had been 

convicted of three violent crimes: deadly conduct (April 2014), assault of a family 

member by impeding breath (December 2014), and assault of a family member with 
45

a previous conviction (June 2020). Martinez testified that Ivan’s siblings stated they 

were scared of Father J, because Father J used to beat up Mother.

(2) Mother’s FSP

Mother testified that she understood she needed to complete the services on 

her FSP to be reunited with her children. Mother testified she successfully 

completed individual therapy and attended parenting classes. According to Mother, 

she learned skills from her therapy, and she actively participated in her parenting 

classes, where she learned new ways to create routines for her and the children, 

respond to different situations and personality types, and otherwise create a good 

environment for the children. Although Mother believed she already was a good 

parent, she testified the parenting classes made her a better parent. On July 24, 2023, 

the last day of trial, Mother testified that since the previous day of trial on June 5, 

2023, she had started taking an online class for caregivers of special needs children, 

even though the classes were not required by her FSP.

With regard to her FSP’s requirements that she submit to drug testing and 

attend a substance abuse program, Mother testified that she participated in substance 

abuse classes during which she learned more about her drugs of choice, CBD and 

marijuana. On May 15, 2023, the first day Mother testified, she claimed that she had 

not used marijuana or CBD since December 2022. However, when she testified on 

July 24, 2023, the last day of trial, Mother admitted she had used marijuana in late 
46

May 2023 or early June 2023. She testified that since the last court hearing, she had 

started an outpatient program for her marijuana use and she was taking an online 

class for caregivers of special needs children, even though the Department had not 

asked her to take such a course. Mother testified that although she was informed she 

could probably get a medical card for her marijuana use, she told her therapist she 

wanted to find other ways to cope with her depression and anxiety. She had no 

problem taking a urine test that day, but she needed more time before she could take 

a hair follicle test because she needed to remove her hair extensions.

Mother’s FSP required her to secure safe, stable, hygienic housing for a 

period of at least six months. With regard to her FSP’s housing requirements,

Mother testified that she signed a two-year lease for a three-bedroom, two-bath home 

with a large yard and that her monthly payment was $1,650. Mother claimed she 

had been living in the home since February 2023. According to Mother, the home 

is near a twenty-four-hour daycare, and she found an autistic-therapy provider close 

to her home. Mother testified that she purchased two bunk beds and two queen beds 

for the children, and by the last day of trial on July 24, 2023, Mother had “removed 

everything out the storage and got all the clothes and shoes and the belongings that 

belong to the children back in the house, got the rest of the mattresses.” 

Mother testified that she gave Martinez a copy of the lease for her new 

residence and Martinez came to the home about a week and a half before the May 
47

15, 2023 trial setting. Although she allowed Martinez to observe the home, Mother 

did not allow Martinez to walk through the entire home because Martinez said the 

home smelled like marijuana. Mother testified that she told Martinez she wanted to 

“call the authorities to come do a walkthrough with her because I assured her there

was no marijuana smell.”

On June 5, 2023, Mother testified that Martinez and Child Advocates visited 

her new home. The home had six beds, but Mother was waiting for some of the 

mattresses that she had ordered to be delivered. Although she had initially set up 

her salon in one of the bedrooms, she moved the salon equipment “to the garage 

because I can use my living room now as the space to do my services versus the 

bedroom.” Mother testified that she lived alone. When asked about the men’s 

cologne and pill bottle Martinez and Child Advocates observed in her home, Mother 

testified that she wears men’s cologne and the pill bottle belonged to an exboyfriend. When told the address she had given the Department in March 2023 was 

different from the address of her current home, Mother denied it. 

With respect to the requirement in the FSP that Mother provide the 

Department with proof of her income from all sources on a monthly basis, Mother 

testified that she was attending cosmetology school when the children were removed 

from her home in January 2022. She worked as a waitress and a real estate agent 

before she went to cosmetology school. 
48

By the time she testified at trial, Mother had graduated and was a licensed 

cosmetologist and she worked as a self-employed hairstylist fifteen to thirty hours 

per week. Mother testified that she operates a salon in her new home and that the 

salon is her primary source of income. A photograph of mother’s salon was admitted 

into evidence. Most of Mother’s clients pay with cash, but some use Cash App. 

Mother testified that her goal was to continue to work in the cosmetology field, offer 

different services, and have “a nice, functioning salon that helps ends meet in the 

end.”

Mother testified that she raised Mike, Julie, Jack, John and Mark alone for 

eight years and Ivan for one year and she was responsible for 95% of the children’s 

expenses, including food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Although Ivan’s 

father, Father J, had helped her financially and did things with the children, Mike’s 

father, Father G, had provided no support. Mother, who had been leasing a Porsche 

when the children came into care, acquired an SUV before trial concluded.

Mother, who was charged with abandonment, was prohibited from having any 

contact with the children. The no-contact order in her criminal case was lifted when 

the charge was dismissed in February 2023. When asked if the court in the present 

case had lifted its no-contact order, Mother testified that the only “no contact order 

I'm aware of is criminal. I have no idea about any other no contact order in place.” 
49

She denied ever hearing the trial judge say during any of the hearings held in the 

present case that she was not to have contact with the children.

On May 15, 2023, Mother denied seeing Mike outside Father G’s presence

while the case was pending. When asked if she saw Mike in February 2023 when 

Father G was not there, Mother said she could not recall. When asked if she had 

seen Mike at a Wal-Mart within the last month, Mother testified she had no contact 

with Mike “to [her] knowledge.” After being shown a video of her and Mike with 

Wal-Mart in the background, Mother was again asked if she had seen Mike within 

the last six months, and Mother testified she could not recall. 

On June 5, 2023, Mother testified that she “met with [Mike] at a Walmart off 

of West Road” one evening. Mike was going to a party and he had friends with him. 

Mother claimed that Mike reached out to her because he wanted to see her. Mother 

testified that although she has never given Father G any money for Mike’s support, 

she gave Mike hundreds of dollars in person and through Cash App in 2023. Mother 

testified that Mike calls her “almost every day” and he often asks for money because 

there is no food in Father G’s home. Mother testified that she tried to provide support 

for the other five children, but the caseworker would not allow it.

Mother believed that Mike was a truthful person, and she was concerned that 

Mike had made inaccurate statements about her and their living conditions while 

they lived with Mother. Mother denied telling the youngest five children that it was 
50

Mike’s fault they were in care because he cooperated with the Department. Mother 

also denied that she instructed the children to lie to law enforcement.

Mother said she had “no record” of contacting Julie and she denied asking

Julie to speak to the younger siblings about this case. Mother also denied making 

any promises to Julie or giving Julie a cell phone. In response to Julie’s claims that 

she was sexually abused by her maternal uncles and that Mother was aware of the 

abuse, Mother claimed she took Julie to the hospital after she made an outcry about 

her “first biological father,” and there had been no outcries since then. Mother 

denied that Julie ever told her she had been sexually abused by Mother’s brothers. 

Mother believed she would be reunited with her children if she completed her 

FSP to the best of her ability and she believed she was a better person for having 

completed her services. She loved her children, she missed them tremendously, and

she wanted to be reunited with them. Mother testified that she never intended to 

neglect or abandon her children and if given another chance, she would do 

everything in her power to prevent the children from being removed from her care. 

Mother testified that she and her children were “very, very close.” She does

not “really hide too much from them” and they have a “very open relationship.” 

Mother testified she is especially close to her daughter, Julie, and they “have done a 

lot of hobbies and activities together.” According to Mother, Julie views her as a 

role model and wants to be like Mother when she grows up. Mother testified that 
51

her sons are protective of her, and Julie and the boys like music and playing sports. 

According to Mother, the family spends a lot of time together and they are “very, 

very, very, very close.” 

Mother testified that if the children were not returned to her care, it would be 

in their best interest to be placed together with a family member. Mother told the 

Department that her sister, Aunt K, was a possible placement for the children. 

According to Mother, Aunt K was willing to take all the children, and Mother

testified that she would provide support to her sister. Mother also testified she was 

willing to participate in family therapy with the children.

5. Shanequa Davis

Shanequa Davis was assigned as the children’s caseworker on June 19, 2023.

Davis testified that Julie, Jack, John, and Mark were placed in an emergency shelter,

and they had been there for almost thirty days. Ivan was in a foster home. All of

the children’s basic needs were being met in their current placements. Davis testified 

that Mike was still placed with Father G, “everything is fine in their home,” and the 

Department has no plans to change the placement.

The Department identified Margaret Florence as a potential placement for 

Julie, but after reviewing’s Florence’s home study, the Department has additional 

questions for Florence. Julie told Davis that “she will miss her siblings, but she 

really wants to be placed with Ms. Florence,” and Jack, John, and Mark told Davis 
52

that they want to be placed together. According to Davis, the children want to see 

Mother, but Jack, John, and Mark do not want to live with Mother. Mark told Davis 

he wanted to be placed in a foster home that was “going to care for him; not the 

previous one that he was in before going to the shelter.” When asked if separating

the children from their parents and siblings could cause the children emotional and 

mental stress, Davis testified that “in the beginning there was some emotional 

distress going on; but just recently, when I visited with the caregivers, as well as the 

facility that has all the therapies and everything, the children are thriving and doing 

well.”

After reviewing the case record, Davis believed that Mother had completed 

all of her services, and Davis agreed that by completing her services, Mother had

shown that she is “taking this case very serious in working towards reuniting with 

her children.” Davis, however, had not had an opportunity to visit with Mother 

because Mother was only available via text and would not answer her phone calls. 

6. Lindsey Cason

Lindsey Cason, Mother’s substance abuse counselor, testified that the children 

came into the Department’s care due to neglectful supervision and physical abuse. 

Cason worked with Mother from the end of October 2022 until May 2023, but there 

was a “lapse of engagement” in January and February 2023. 
53

According to Cason, Mother was discharged successfully from the substance 

abuse program on May 9, 2023. Mother’s last drug test, before her discharge, was 

on March 5, 2023. According to Cason, Mother’s urine sample tested negative, and 

although her hair follicle test was positive, the amount detected in Mother’s hair had 

“decreased at that time.” Although Mother had one drug test pending at the time of 

discharge, Cason discharged Mother because, based on Mother’s February 2023 and 

March 5, 2023 test results, Cason had no reason to believe that Mother was still using 

drugs. But Cason did have some hesitancy discharging Mother on May 9, 2023 “due 

to her lack of consistency in all of her drug screenings just overall, as a whole.”

After Mother was discharged, Cason received additional test results. 

Mother’s urine and hair follicle samples tested positive for marijuana use. When 

asked if Mother took responsibility and acknowledged that drugs were a concern in 

the case, Cason testified that Mother did “towards the end.” Cason testified that if

she had known Mother’s latest test results had tested positive for marijuana, she

would not have discharged Mother from the substance abuse program.

On cross examination, Cason testified that when assessing whether to 

discharge Mother on May 9, 2023, Cason considered that Mother had “become more 

cooperative in her services as far as being more engaged and completing her personal 

assignments,” Mother had “finished her treatment objectives by that time,” Mother 

“successfully looked at each individual topic” with Cason, Mother “verbalized how 
54

her marijuana use had impacted her life in the case of her children,” and her drug 

tests in February 2023 and March 2023 were negative. According to Cason, it 

appeared to her that Mother “had more understanding of the harmful effects of doing 

that behavior,” and she was “doing better during that time she was with me.”

Cason testified that Mother’s substance abuse counseling was specifically for 

marijuana. When asked about the negative effects marijuana use has as it relates to 

caring for children, Cason testified that they consider marijuana a drug, and drug use 

can have a variety of physical and mental side effects, including “emotional 

instability or not being present for children to tend to their emotional needs.” When 

asked if there were specific side effects of marijuana use, Cason testified it depended 

in part on which strain the person was using, but generally when someone is high on 

marijuana their “inhibitions are going to be lowered and their “judgment is going [to 

be] impaired.”

According to Cason, Mother was using the Delta 9 and CBD. Cason testified

that while pure CBD is not supposed to be a psychotropic, some CBD products, 

including the ones Mother was using, have trace amounts of THC, which make the 

product more psychotropic. Mother told Cason she was using CBD to reduce her 

anxiety and depression. When asked if CBD use by parent is dangerous, Cason 

testified that she does not “recommend CBD use just because . . . it’s not regulated” 

and they do not “know how much THC is contained in those products.” Cason 
55

testified that Delta 9 is “another form of marijuana” that some people believe is legal 

because some of the physical components have been changed. Cason, however, was 

“not too sure of the legality” of Delta 9 because “they’ve gone back and forth with 

trying to outlaw it and keep it in the stores; but I know it still contains THC, which 

is the issue at hand.” Cason testified that the lapse in Mother’s treatment occurred 

because they had to obtain a new agreement before Mother could continue receiving 

services.

7. Dr. Dorothy Florian-Lacy

Dr. Dorothy Florian-Lacy is the therapist for Jack, John, and Mark. Dr. Lacy 

testified that she began meeting with Jack, John, and Mark in January 2023. When 

asked why the children were in the Department’s care, Dr. Lacy testified that “their 

biological father died approximately 2-1/2 years ago, and the mother had some 

difficulty with providing for their needs.” Dr. Lacy testified that the kids exhibited 

behaviors consistent with neglect or abuse, including an “inability to perform 

academic tests commensurate with their age or grade level,” “a very difficult time 

with their attention span, focusing, following the daily routine of home life, and just 

following directions in general.” 

On cross examination, Dr. Lacy testified that the boys’ father, Father Y, had 

committed suicide in front of them and that such trauma could lead to some of the 

behaviors she witnessed. According to Dr. Lacy, it is “hard to tease out what alone 
56

would result in those kinds of behaviors.” In addition to the death of their father, the 

boys had experienced other traumatic events, such as “[i]nconsistent parenting; 

having an absent parent that perhaps is not available due to substance abuse; 

traumatic experiences with food and security,” and multiple changes of residence. 

According to Dr. Lacy, trauma “can be one incident, but it also can develop over 

time.”

According to Dr. Lacy, the children told her they had not gone to school for 

almost two years. She testified that the lack of schooling harmed Jack the most 

because he was the oldest of the three siblings. Dr. Lacy testified that Jack is “so 

embarrassed about not being able to read, that he kind of refuses and shuts down.” 

When asked if Jack had improved while in the Department’s care, Dr. Lacy testified 

that Jack “can learn, he's capable of it, but he needs a lot of one-on-one and kind 

attention to help him get the basics.” John wants to learn as well, and Mark, the 

youngest of the three, is “closer to grade level than his two brothers.”

Dr. Lacy testified that food and security were of significant concern when the 

children came into care. According to Dr. Lacy, the “issue of food security came up 

quite often.” Dr. Lacy testified that she often visited Grandmother’s home at 

mealtime and the children were “incessant about having, oh, additional food, as 

well” and Grandmother would “leave the snacks in the car or they would be 

consumed entirely in one day.” When asked if Jack, John, or Mark discussed 
57

whether they had sufficient food at home when they lived with Mother, Dr. Lacy 

testified that the boys “love their mother very much; and with that, they wouldn’t 

speak about any problems that existed.” According to Dr. Lacy, the boys were “in 

denial” and they blamed themselves and each other for a lot of things, such as the 

messiness of the home and arguing over “what toys belonged to who” and “who ate 

the last of the chips.” Dr. Lacy believed the children had experienced food insecurity 

because they would hoard food and take food without permission. The boys did not 

disclose to Dr. Lacy any physical or sexual abuse.

Dr. Lacy testified that Jack, John, and Mark were “very thin” when she first 

met them, but now they were “very healthy-looking.” When they came into care, 

the boys did not go to school or have “wholesome, age-appropriate activities.” Dr. 

Lacy testified that although she brings activities for her sessions with the boys, they 

“hardly wanted to talk to me because they wanted to get back and be with their peers, 

which, again, I found as growth.” According to Dr. Lacy, Jack, John, and Mark 

“really seem to enjoy their current placement,” a youth ranch. Dr. Lacy testified that 

she had not met with Mother because she was directed to do therapy with the 

children, not family therapy.

8. Margaret Florence

Margaret Florence, who is 73 years old, testified that her son had dated

Grandmother, and Florence had known all six of Mother’s children since they were 
58

born. Florence testified that she took care of Julie from “four months until she was 

three years old” and she was willing to adopt Julie. Florence testified she was unable 

to care for the boys, but she was looking for other family members who could do so. 

D. Closing Arguments

In its closing argument, the Department asked the trial court to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to Julie, Jack, John, Mark, and Ivan under Subsections (D), 

(E), (J), (O), and (P) of the Texas Family Code. According to the Department, 

termination of Mother’s parental rights was warranted based on the children’s 

condition when they came into care, their disclosures of physical and sexual abuse, 

and the food insecurity the children experienced while in Mother’s care. The 

Department argued that although Mother had satisfied portions of her FSP, Mother 

had not provided the Department with adequate proof of income, and she had tested 

positive for drugs throughout the pendency of the case, including after she completed 

the substance abuse program required by her FSP. According to the Department, it 

was not apparent that Mother “entirely learned from the family plan of service or 

alleviated the concerns.” The Department also argued that while Mother testified 

she had enrolled the children in home school, she also testified there had been “a 

lapse between [the time] they were enrolled in school and [the time] they were 

enrolled in home school.”
59

Unlike the five youngest children, the Department did not ask the trial court 

to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Mike. Instead, the Department asked the 

trial court to name Father G as Mike’s primary managing conservator, Mother as 

Mike’s possessory conservator, and to order “visitations as agreed upon between the 

parties.”

In her closing, Mother argued that in addition to all of the services required 

by her FSP, she had also completed additional services on her own volition, and she

had “made an effort throughout the pendency of this case to reunite and rehabilitate 

herself and her home to make sure that [her] children ha[d] a place to come back to.” 

Mother argued that she is able to support herself financially, she had shown stability 

throughout the pendency of this case, and she had a stable home for the past several 

months, as evidenced by the lease she provided to the Department. According to 

Mother, the Department’s “entire case” was based on “the conditions in the home 

prior to removal and [the Department had] not been able to show that these issues 

are still a concern at this time” because her new home “has been rehabilitated and it 

is suitable for children to live.”

Mother argued that she “has taken full responsibility . . . for the actions or the 

cause of why these children came into care” and her testimony that she “gained 

insight from the classes, the substance abuse classes, the therapy, and the counseling 
60

that she attended and completed successfully,” demonstrates that those classes had 

a “rehabilitative effect on her.” 

Mother argued that Julie, Jack, John, and Mark’s father, Father Y, committed 

suicide and Ivan’s father, Father J, was “just not present.” According to Mother, the 

children are bonded with her, and it would be “tremendously traumatic” for the 

children to lose her, their only remaining parent.

With regard to Ivan, Mother argued that she had “taken it upon herself to go 

above and beyond to care and to seek information and to seek counseling on how to 

care for her child with a disability and put [Ivan] in a position that she is able to 

assist and help.” Mother argued that Florence and Aunt K were willing to help and 

support her.

Mother asked the trial court to not terminate her parental rights to Julie, Jack, 

John, Mark, and Ivan and she argued that it was in their best interest “to be on a road 

or a plan or path to be reunified with their mother; and, if not, be placed in a home 

that is suitable that is a family relative that can take these children [who] have no 

permanent placement and no plan for permanent placement.”

In his closing argument, Father J asked the trial court not to terminate his 

parental rights to Ivan because he was not the reason Ivan had come into the 

Department’s care. He argued he wanted a legal relationship with Ivan, and he had 

“provided some support along the way.”
61

In his closing argument, Father G agreed that Mother’s rights to Mike should 

not be terminated. He argued that any visits between Mother and Mike should be 

supervised and “only as mutually agreed.” Father G asked the court to name him as 

Mike’s permanent managing conservator, change Mike’s surname to Father G’s 

surname as Mike requested, and order Mother to pay “minimum wage child support” 

for Mike.

In her closing, the children’s attorney ad litem, Laura Neilsberg, informed the 

trial court that Mike requested that Mother’s parental rights to him be terminated. 

According to Neilsberg,

[Mike] has requested that his mother’s parental rights be terminated,

based on the living conditions of the home, the fact that he was 

responsible for the care of his siblings . . . due to the abuse and neglect 

of his mother, the neglect of his education, and the physical and 

emotional abuse that he suffered at the hands of his mother. The 

Department has shown by clear and convincing evidence the grounds 

for termination.

. . . . 

It is in [Mike’s] best interest.

[Mike] is asking for termination. He is asking for the Court to validate 

the trauma that has been experienced by himself. And he is asking to 

be the one in charge of any relationship he may or may not have with 

his mother.

Neilsberg argued that termination of Mother’s parental rights to Mike was 

also warranted because Mother had not shown that she had a stable living 

environment or provided proof of income or that the children attended school from 
62

2019 to 2021. According to Neilsberg, Mother “has no excuse for the condition the

children were living in, the fact that they did not have adequate food to eat, or the 

fact that they had scars all over their bodies” when they came into the Department’s 

care, and Mother tested positive for drugs after she completed her required substance 

abuse program. Based on these facts and evidence, Neilsberg asked the trial court 

to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Mike under Subsections (D), (E), (O), and 

(J), and to appoint Father G as Mike’s sole managing conservator. With regard to 

Ivan, Neilsberg asked the trial court to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Ivan 

under Subsections (D), (E), and (O). Neilsberg argued that Ivan, who was four years 

old, autistic, and “barely verbal,” was the “most vulnerable child in this case.” She 

argued it was in Ivan’s best interest for Mother’s rights to be terminated because 

Mother could not meet his basic needs or his special needs. Neilsberg argued that 

when Ivan came into the Department’s care, he was underweight and had “several 

cavities and a mouth infection which made it difficult for him to eat.”

With regard to Julie, Jack, John, and Mark, Neilsberg argued that although the 

Department had shown by clear and convincing evidence that there were grounds 

for termination, the children had indicated they wanted to have a relationship with 

Mother and Julie wanted to be reunited with Mother. Neilsberg argued that if the 

trial court did not terminate Mother’s rights to Julie, Jack, John, and Mark, the 
63

Department should be named as the children’s permanent managing conservator and 

their visitation with Mother should be “limited to supervised, therapeutic visits.” 

The children’s co-attorney ad litem, Derrick Reed, told the trial court that he 

agreed with Neilsberg that Mother’s rights to Mike and Ivan should be terminated. 

With regard to Julie, Jack, John, and Mark, Reed argued that Mother had not 

“admitted or even shown any remorse as to the things that have been presented 

during this trial,” including the “deplorable conditions” of her home. Mother also 

violated the court’s order by meeting with Mike in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and 

although she had completed the requirements of her FSP, she had not shown “any 

want to change what she put these children through.” According to Reed, it was not 

in the best interest of Julie, Jack, John, or Mark to be returned to Mother’s care. 

Reed asked that Julie, Jack, John, and Mark be placed in a “foster placement where 

they are getting three meals a day, where they are in good living conditions,” and 

that if the trial court did not terminate Mother’s rights to the children, any visits 

between Mother and the children be supervised.

On September 3, 2023, the trial court signed a final decree terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to Mike pursuant to Subsections (D), (E), (O), (J), and (P), 

appointing Father G as Mike’s sole managing conservator, and granting Mike’s 

request to change his surname to Father G’s surname. The trial court terminated 

Mother’s parental rights to Ivan pursuant to Subsections (D), (E), (O), (P), and 
64

appointed the Department as Ivan’s sole managing conservator.

8 The trial court 

appointed the Department as sole managing conservator for Julie, Jack, John, and 

Mark, and it appointed Mother as their possessory conservator, awarding Mother 

supervised therapeutic visitation with the children once a month, and ordering 

Mother to pay monthly child support for Julie, Jack, John, and Mark.

This appeal followed.

Best Interest of the Child

In her sole issue on appeal, Mother argues there is legally and factually 

insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that termination of her 

parental rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.001(b)(2).

A. Standard of Review

A parent’s rights to the “companionship, care, custody, and management” of 

his or her child is a constitutional interest “far more precious than any property 

right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59 (1982) (quoting Lassiter v. Dep’t

of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)); see In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 

2003). The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that “the interest of [a] 

parent[] in the care, custody, and control of [her] children . . . is perhaps the oldest 

8

 The trial court also terminated Father J’s parental rights to Ivan pursuant to 

Subsections (D), (N), and (O).
65

of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 

530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court has concluded that 

“[t]his natural parental right” is “essential,” “a basic civil right of man,” and “far 

more precious than property rights.” Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985) 

(internal quotations omitted); see also In re R.J.G., 681 S.W.3d 370, 373 (Tex. 2023)

(“Both this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have long recognized 

the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and 

control of their children.”). Consequently, we strictly scrutinize termination 

proceedings and strictly construe the involuntary termination statutes in favor of the 

parent. Holick, 685 S.W.2d at 20.

In a case to terminate parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 

161.001, the Department must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

(1) the parent committed one or more of the enumerated predicate acts or omissions 

justifying termination and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. See

TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b). Clear and convincing evidence is “the measure or 

degree of proof that will 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.” Id. § 101.007; 

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264 (Tex. 2002). Only one predicate finding under 

Section 161.001(b)(1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there 
66

is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 

355, 362 (Tex. 2003).

When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a case involving 

termination of parental rights, we determine whether the evidence is such that a 

factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that there existed 

grounds for termination under Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination was in the 

best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1), (2); In re J.F.C., 96 

S.W.3d at 266. We examine all evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, 

assuming the “factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable 

factfinder could do so.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We must also disregard all 

evidence that the factfinder could have reasonably disbelieved or found not to be 

credible. Id. But this does not mean we must disregard all evidence that does not 

support the finding. Id. Because of the heightened standard, we must also be 

mindful of any undisputed evidence contrary to the finding and consider that 

evidence in our analysis. Id. If we determine that no reasonable trier of fact could 

form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is true, we must 

hold the evidence to be legally insufficient and render judgment in favor of the 

parent. Id.

When conducing a factual sufficiency review in a termination case, we must 

consider the entire record. In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d 665, 674 
67

(Tex. 2020); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We assume “that the factfinder resolved 

disputed evidence in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so.” In

re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d at 674 (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 

266). Unlike a legal sufficiency review, when assessing the factual sufficiency of 

the evidence, we cannot disregard disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder 

could not have credited in favor of the finding. In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 

S.W.3d at 674 (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266); see also In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 

624, 630 (Tex. 2018) (“The distinction between legal and factual sufficiency lies in 

the extent to which disputed evidence contrary to a finding may be considered.”). 

Rather, we must determine whether, in light of the entire record, that evidence “is so 

significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or 

conviction” that the finding was true. In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d 

at 674 (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266). Under both legal and factual 

sufficiency standards, the trial court is the sole arbiter of a witness’s credibility and 

demeanor and the weight of the evidence. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 

2009).

B. Applicable Law

The purpose of the State’s intervention in the parent-child relationship is to

protect the best interests of the children, not to punish parents for their conduct. See

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 361. There is a strong presumption that the best interest
68

of a child is served by keeping the child with a parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112,

116 (Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2012, no pet.). But there is also a presumption that the “prompt and permanent 

placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child’s best 

interest.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a); see also In re B.J.C., 495 S.W.3d 29, 39 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (noting child’s need for 

permanence through establishment of stable, permanent home is “the paramount 

consideration in best-interest determination”). 

To determine whether parental termination is in a child’s best interest, courts 

may consider the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the 

present and future physical and emotional needs of the child; (3) the present and 

future emotional and physical danger to the child; (4) the parental abilities of the 

persons seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist those persons seeking 

custody in promoting the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the 

individuals or agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed 

placement; (8) acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate the existing parentchild relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or 

omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors 

are not exhaustive, and evidence is not required on every factor to support a finding 

that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Id.; In re D.R.A.,
69

374 S.W.3d at 533. Similarly, lack of evidence for some of the Holley factors does 

not preclude a fact finder from reasonably forming a strong conviction or belief that 

termination is in the children’s best interest. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex.

2002); In re J.G.S., 574 S.W.3d 101, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. 

denied).

We may also consider the statutory factors set forth in Texas Family Code 

Section 263.307, including (1) the child’s age and physical and mental 

vulnerabilities; (2) whether there is a history of abusive or assaultive conduct by the 

child’s family or others who have access to the child’s home; (3) the willingness and 

ability of the child’s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services 

and to cooperate with and facilitate an appropriate agency’s close supervision; 

(4) the willingness and ability of the child’s family to effect positive environmental 

and personal changes within a reasonable period of time; (5) whether the child’s 

family demonstrates adequate parenting skills, including providing the child with 

minimally adequate health and nutritional care, a safe physical home environment, 

and an understanding of the child’s needs and capabilities; and (6) whether an 

adequate social support system consisting of an extended family and friends is 

available to the child. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116.

A parent’s past conduct is probative of his future conduct when evaluating a 

child’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San
70

Antonio 2013, no pet.); see also Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 724 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). A fact finder may infer that past 

conduct endangering the well-being of a child may recur in the future if the child is 

returned to the parent when assessing the best interest of the child. See In re D.M.,

452 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.); see also In re B.K.D., 

131 S.W.3d 10, 17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied) (same).

Courts may consider circumstantial evidence, subjective factors, and the 

totality of the evidence as well as direct evidence when conducting a best-interest 

analysis. See In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet.

denied). Evidence supporting termination under one of the predicate grounds listed 

in Section 161.001(b)(1) may also be considered in support of a finding that 

termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 

249 (Tex. 2013) (stating finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) can support best 

interest finding); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (holding same evidence may be 

probative of both Section 161.001(b)(1) grounds and best interest). The trial court 

is given wide latitude in determining the best interest of the children. Gillespie v.

Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982); see also Cuellar v. Flores, 238 S.W.2d 

991, 992 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1951, no writ) (trial court “faces the parties and 

the witnesses, observes their demeanor and personality, and feels the forces, powers, 

and influences that cannot be discerned by merely reading the record”).
71

C. Analysis

Multiple factors support the trial court’s findings that termination of Mother’s 

parental rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest, including Mother’s history of 

endangering her children, who experienced profound neglect and physical abuse 

while in Mother’s care, her ongoing drug use, her inability to provide a safe and 

stable home for the children, and her inability to provide her children with a safe and 

stable home. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (holding that evidence may be 

probative of Section 161.001(1) grounds and best interest); see also In re M.R., 243 

S.W.3d 807, 821 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (“A parent’s drug use, 

inability to provide a stable home, and failure to comply with a family service plan 

support a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child.”).

With regard to the present and future emotional and physical dangers to Mike

and Ivan, the evidence shows that Mother repeatedly allowed Mike, Ivan, and their 

siblings to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, neglected the children’s personal 

hygiene and medical and dental needs, physically abused the children, and exposed 

the children to domestic violence.

The police who first discovered the children at Mother’s home alone in 

January 2022 and the Department caseworker who investigated the officers’ 

allegations of neglect described Mother’s home as “unsuitable” and “not livable for 

the children.” The home was filthy, smelled of urine, and it was filed with bags of 
72

trash, infested with rats and cockroaches, and had “loose wiring” hanging out the 

walls. The toilet and sink in the children’s bathroom were filled with urine and feces. 

There was no running water in the home or food in the kitchen or deep freezer, and 

there was one mattress on the floor in the master bedroom which Mother shared with 

her six children. The Department also found Mike, Julie, Jack, and John living in 

similar “deplorable conditions” in March 2014. According to the referral, Mother’s 

home was “nasty,” there was a “stench as you walk into the home,” it was littered 

with clothes “and stuff,” and it did not have “a sink, a bathroom shower or tub.” 

This evidence supports the trial court’s findings that termination of Mother’s 

parental rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest. See In re L.W., No. 01-18-

01025-CV, 2019 WL 1523124, at *16, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 

2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding evidence parent allowed child to live in 

unsanitary conditions supports endangerment finding under Section 161.001(b)(1) 

and best interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2)); In re M.A.A., No. 01-20-

00709-CV, 2021 WL 1134308, at *18, 22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 25, 

2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); see also Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (identifying

present and future emotional and physical dangers to child as best interest factor). 

The trial court could also infer from this evidence that such endangering conduct 

could reoccur in the future if the children were returned to Mother’s care. See In re
73

B.K.D., 131 S.W.3d at 17 (stating fact finder may infer that past conduct endangering 

child’s well-being may recur in future if child returned to parent).

Aside from the children’s unsanitary living conditions, the record reflects that 

Mother repeatedly neglected the children’s personal hygiene and physical condition 

while under her care. In May 2019, Julie’s teacher reported that Julie’s hygiene had 

been deteriorating since early April 2019, and that her clothes had a “very strong 

urine smell.” Father G stated that when he saw Mike in 2020, Mike smelled like 

mildew, his hair was smelly and matted, and Mike told Father G that he had gotten 

into trouble recently for taking a bath. When they were removed from Mother’s 

home in January 2022, Mike, Ivan, and their siblings “had a strong, musty, urine and 

filth stench,” they were wearing smelly, soiled clothing, they had trash or debris 

stuck in their “severely matted” hair and they were underweight for their ages. It 

was apparent to the police and to Whitely that none of the children had bathed “for 

quite some time.” This evidence that Mother neglected her children’s personal 

hygiene also supports the trial court’s best interest findings. See In re J.H., No. 01-

22-00629-CV, 2023 WL 2169952, at *14, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 

23, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding “evidence of unsanitary and dangerous 

conditions in a child’s home as well as evidence that a parent has neglected her 

child’s physical condition” supports endangerment finding under Section 

161.001(b)(1)(D) and best interest); see also In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d 571, 584 (Tex. 
74

App.—Amarillo 2020, pet. denied) (“Allowing children to live in unsanitary 

conditions and neglecting their physical condition can constitute endangerment.”). 

The trial court could also infer from this evidence that such endangering conduct 

could reoccur in the future if the children were returned to Mother’s care. See In re

B.K.D., 131 S.W.3d at 17.

There was also evidence that the children suffered physical abuse while they 

were living in Mother’s home. Mike, Jack, and Mark made outcries of physical 

abuse by Mother and Julie collaborated their claims. Jack and Mark reported that 

Mother “used to whip them constantly with an extension cord,” and when she grew 

tired of hitting them, Mother made them “stand in the corner for hours.” According 

to Jack and Mark, Ivan was the only child that did not get whipped. Mike claimed 

that Mother had kicked him in the stomach and struck him in the head with a belt 

buckle, and if the children made Mother upset, Mike “got the worst” of the abuse. 

Julie agreed that Mother “beat on” Mike worse than the other children.

Martinez testified that she saw marks and bruises on all the children when 

they came into the Department’s care. Among other evidence of physical abuse, 

Mike had substantial scarring on his back, Ivan had “excessive marks and scratches 

all over his body,” including both old scars and “fresh” scratches, and Mark had 

scarring on his leg and arm. Evidence that Mother physically abused Mike supports 

the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s rights to Mike is in his best 
75

interest. See In re L.W., 2019 WL 1523124, at *11 (stating direct physical abuse of 

child constitutes endangering conduct); see Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (identifying

present and future emotional and physical dangers to child as best interest factor); In

re A.K.T., No. 01-18-00647-CV, 2018 WL 6423381, at *16 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2018, pet. denied). (mem. op.) (stating mother’s history of violent

abusive conduct directed at child, father, and other individuals supported best

interest finding). A fact finder may infer that such endangering conduct may recur 

in future if the child is returned to the parent. See In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d at 471 

(stating fact finder may infer that past endangering conduct will recur if child 

returned to parent); In re B.K.D., 131 S.W.3d at 17 (same). Evidence that Mother 

abused Mike and Ivan’s other siblings also supports the trial court’s finding that 

termination of Mother’s rights to Ivan was in Ivan’s best interest. See In re D.T., 34 

S.W.3d 625, 636–37 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied) (stating parent’s 

conduct with regard to other children can be used to support finding of endangerment 

even with regard to child born after such conduct occurred); see generally In re

S.G.S, 130 S.W.3d 223, 238 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (reasoning that 

fact finder could infer from actual neglect of one child that physical and emotional 

well-being of other children was also jeopardized).

Julie also claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by two of her maternal 

uncles and although Mother was aware of the abuse, Mother did nothing about it. 
76

See In re A.B., 125 S.W.3d 769, 778 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied)

(stating parent’s “failure to protect the emotional well-being of the children 

following the allegations of sexual abuse” supports trial court’s best interest finding). 

Although Mother denied causing the children’s injuries or knowing that Julie had 

been sexually abused by her maternal uncles, it was within the trial court’s province, 

as the sole arbiter of a witness’s credibility, to disbelieve Mother’s testimony and 

conclude, in light of the evidence, that Mother had physically abused the children 

and turned a blind eye to Julie’s outcry of sexual abuse by Mother’s brothers. See 

In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (stating trial court is sole arbiter of witness 

credibility and demeanor). Mike told the Department that Father J, Ivan’s father, 

“was not around much and it’s a good thing” because Father J, who had been 

convicted of three violent offenses, was “abusive to [Mother] and [Mike] has seen 

him hit [Mother].” Such evidence reflects that Mother exposed her children to 

domestic violence and thus supports the trial court’s best interest finding. See In re

K.K., No. 09-20-00300-CV, 2021 WL 2148857, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 

27, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (stating evidence parent’s exposure of child to 

domestic violence supports trial court’s finding that termination is in child’s best

interest); see also TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(7) (identifying history of abusive 

or assaultive conduct by child’s family as factor relevant to best interest analysis).
77

With regard to Ivan’s and Mike’s present and future physical and emotional 

needs, the record reflects that Mother failed to meet many of her children’s basic 

needs, including providing adequate food and medical and dental care. “A child’s 

basic needs include food, shelter, clothing, routine medical care, and a safe, 

stimulating, and nurturing home environment.” In re K-A.B.M., 551 S.W.3d 275, 

288 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.); see also Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372

(identifying present and future physical and emotional needs of child as best interest 

factor); TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(12)(A) (stating parent’s ability to provide

child with “minimally adequate health and nutritional care” is best interest factor). 

With regard to the children’s nutritional needs, Whitely stated that there was 

no food in the kitchen or deep freezer when she inspected the home in January 2022, 

and the children told Whitely they were hungry and had not eaten since the previous 

day. Dr. Lacy noted that the children hoarded available food after they came into 

the Department’s care and that food insecurity came up often in her conversations 

with Jack, John, and Mark. Whitely and Dr. Lacy agreed that the children were 

underweight when they came into the Department’s care. Martinez testified that the 

children reported that, when they lived with Mother, “they were starved or didn’t 

receive any meals, some days []they would fight over the food that was left,” and 

they “would have to steal for food.” The children also used their piggy bank money 
78

to buy food for themselves. Mike stated that he was afraid Ivan would starve to 

death.

The record also reflects that concerns were raised about the availability and 

adequacy of food in Mother’s home as early as 2019. In May 2019, Julie’s teacher 

reported that Julie was severely underweight, and often asked to take food home 

from school. Father G told the Department that when he saw Mike in 2020, Mike 

was skinny, he appeared malnourished, and his leg bones protruded. Mike also told 

Father G that he went to bed without food some days. 

Although Mother claimed there was always sufficient food in her home for 

the children, it was within the trial court’s province, as the sole arbiter of a witness’s 

credibility, to credit the children’s and other witnesses’ testimony over Mother’s 

testimony about the availability of food in the home, and conclude, in light of the 

evidence, that Mother failed to provide her children, including Mike and Ivan, with 

enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 

346 (stating trial court is sole arbiter of witness credibility and demeanor). 

The evidence demonstrates that Mother also neglected the children’s medical 

and dental needs while they were in her care. A child’s basic needs include medical 

and dental care and courts may consider evidence that a parent neglected to seek 

appropriate medical and dental treatment for her children when determining whether 

termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest. See In re K.S.O.B., 
79

No. 01-18-00860-CV, 2019 WL 1246348, at *19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Mar. 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

With regard to the children’s medical and dental needs, Mother claimed she 

took the children to a dentist every six months or once a year. She admitted, 

however, that she “didn’t do the best job of the dentist appointments.” The record 

reflects that Mike needed intensive dental work when he first came into the 

Department’s care. Mike told Whitely that he had been suffering from a toothache 

for two weeks and although he told Mother about his toothache, she did nothing to 

address it. Mark had seven cavities when he entered the Department’s care and Julie 

also needed extensive dental work.

Ivan, who was three years old when he came into care, needed “fairly 

extensive [dental] work . . . due to neglect in the home of origin,” and his first foster 

parent noticed that he “would take his food and stuff all the way to his back teeth to 

chew in the back because the front teeth appeared to be in such pain.” Ivan, who 

had cavities visible to the naked eye, was also drooling significantly when he came 

into the Department’s care. Ivan’s dentist concluded that Ivan had been drooling 

because he had an infection, and it was likely very painful for Ivan to eat. 

Mike was behind on his immunizations when he came into care, and he was 

not being treated for his ADHD. Jack had been having hearing problems and doctors 

found an eraser stuck in his ear, which had been there for years. Ivan, who was 
80

diagnosed with autism, encephalopathy, and several developmental issues relating 

to neglect, was not receiving any treatment for his conditions while in Mother’s care. 

Mother also claimed that Ivan, who was non-verbal when he came into care, “wasn’t 

nonverbal in [her] custody” and she claimed he spoke in complete sentences.

The trial court could infer from this evidence that Mother failed to seek 

appropriate medical and dental treatment for Mike, Ivan, and her other children. See

In re K.S.O.B., 2019 WL 1246348, at *19 (stating evidence parent failed to seek 

appropriate medical and dental treatment for child supports best interest finding). 

The trial court could also infer that Mother’s inattention to her children’s medical 

and dental needs would continue in the future. See In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195, 

205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).

Mother’s inability to meet her children’s basic needs also constitutes 

endangering conduct. See In re J.D.G., 570 S.W.3d 839, 852 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (stating neglecting child’s medical and dental needs 

endangers child); In re J.V.B., No. 01-17-00958-CV, 2018 WL 2727732, at *7 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 7, 2018, pet. denied) (stating parent’s failure to 

provide for child’s basic need endangered child’s well-being).

The child’s need for a permanent home has been “recognized as the paramount 

consideration in a best interest determination.” In re B.J.C., 495 S.W.3d at 39; see 

also Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (recognizing stability of home as best-interest 
81

factor). The record reflects that Mother did not move out of her home, which the 

police and Department deemed unlivable, until July 2022—six months after the 

children were removed from her care. Mother, who claimed she stayed with a friend 

after she first moved out, did not provide the Department with an address or lease 

until February 2023. Although she acquired a two-year lease for a home that was 

considerably better than her prior home, the lease did not commence until February 

2023, which was over a year after the children were removed from her home. While 

Mother claimed she had been living in the home since February 2023, she told the 

Department in March 2023 that she was living at an address in Crockett, Texas.

A parent’s drug use is also indicative of instability in the home because it 

exposes the children to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or imprisoned. 

See In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. 

denied); see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345 (“[A] parent’s use of narcotics and 

its effect on his or her ability to parent may qualify as an endangering course of 

conduct.”); TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(8) (including “whether there is a history 

of substance abuse by the child’s family” among factors that “should be considered 

by the court” when “determining whether the child’s parents are willing and able to 

provide the child with a safe environment”). The record reflects that, while this case 

was pending, Mother submitted nine urine and hair samples that tested positive for 

marijuana or marijuana metabolites, and she failed or refused to submit to thirteen 
82

drug tests, all of which the trial court presumed were positive. See In re J.M.T., 519 

S.W.3d 258, 269 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (stating refusal 

to give hair sample permitted court to infer father refused testing because it would 

be positive); In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d 874, 885 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2009, no pet.) (holding fact finder could infer that parent’s failure to submit to courtordered drug testing indicated parent was avoiding testing because she was using 

narcotics). Mother also tested positive for drugs during trial and after she was 

discharged from substance abuse treatment. See In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 580 (“[A] 

parent’s decision to engage in illegal drug use during the pendency of a termination 

suit, when the parent is at risk of losing a child, may support a finding that the parent 

engaged in conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.”) 

(quoting In re K.C.F., No. 01–13–01078–CV, 2014 WL 2538624, at *9–10 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)).

The evidence also establishes that Mother did not comply with her FSP. 

Although Mother’s FSP required her to secure stable housing for a minimum of six 

months consecutively and throughout the duration of the case, she did not provide 

the Department with proof of stable housing until May 5, 2023, which was the first 

day of trial and over a year after the children were removed from her home. She 

also failed to provide the Department with proof of all sources of her income on a 

monthly basis, she tested positive for drugs even after being discharged from her 
83

substance abuse program, and she failed or refused to submit samples for thirteen 

drug tests. See In re M.R., 243 S.W.3d at, 821 (stating parent’s failure to comply 

with FSP supports finding that termination is in child’s best interest).

With regard to Mother’s parental abilities, the record reflects that although 

Mother claimed she was home-schooling the children using online programs, her 

efforts were insufficient to meet the children’s educational needs because she failed 

to provide the children with adequate resources and supervision. See In re M.F., No. 

01-17-00835-CV, 2018 WL 1630180, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 

2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting child was “behind her peers academically in 

almost every way, she barely knew her alphabet, and she could not write her name 

despite being almost seven years old” when discussing evidence of parental abilities 

for purposes of determining whether termination of parents’ rights was in child’s 

best interest); see also In re A.O.M., No. 14-15-01012-CV, 2016 WL 1660630, at *6 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) 

(considering parents’ failure to ensure children were enrolled in school as evidence 

of parental abilities for purposes of determining whether termination of parents’ 

rights was in child’s best interest). The record reflects the children had to use a 

neighbor’s WIFI to connect to the internet and, according to Mike, all five schoolaged children shared one iPad for homeschooling. Mother, who attended school 

outside the home, also left the five school-aged children unsupervised when they 
84

were ostensibly home-schooling. Mike told the Department that the children had 

not been in school for a “few months.” Mike, Julie, Jack, John, and Mark struggled 

academically when they returned to a formal school setting. Mark had to repeat 

second grade due to deficits in reading and Jack’s reading level was at least one year 

behind his peers. Ivan is autistic and developmentally delayed and while Mother 

started taking an online class for caregivers of special needs children and she found 

an autistic therapy provider close to her home, Mother did not do so until the middle 

of trial. She also claimed that Ivan, who was non-verbal when he came into care, 

“wasn’t nonverbal in [her] custody” and she claimed he spoke in complete sentences, 

indicating Mother lacked an understanding or failed to recognize Ivan’s 

developmental delays. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(12)(F) (identifying as

best-interest factor parent’s parenting skills, which includes “an understanding of 

the child’s needs and capabilities”).

Mother’s past endangering conduct is also an indication of her parenting 

abilities. See In re H.M.O.L., No. 01-17-00775-CV, 2018 WL 1659981, at *18 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 6, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing In re J.S.G., 

2009 WL 1311986, at *9). Her use of drugs throughout the pendency of the case, 

including during trial, also indicates that Mother exercises poor judgment. See In re

S.G., No. 01-18-00728-CV, 2019 WL 1448870, at *5 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st 

Dist.] Apr. 2, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Parental drug abuse also reflects poor 
85

judgment and an unwillingness to prioritize a child’s safety and welfare and thus 

may be considered in determining a child’s best interest.”).

Although Mother completed her parenting classes, planned to enroll the 

children in school if they were returned to her, and made an effort to educate herself 

regarding the care and resources that Ivan needed, it was the trial court’s obligation 

to weigh all the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses, and based on all 

the evidence, the trial court could have concluded that Mother’s efforts came too late 

and were insufficient to demonstrate she has good parenting skills. See Holley, 544

S.W.2d at 372 (identifying parental abilities of persons seeking custody as bestinterest factor); TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(12) (identifying party’s parenting

skills as best-interest factor).

Mother argues that although there were concerns about her ability to provide 

the children with a safe and stable home, “it is clear from the evidence presented at 

trial that [Mother] has made the requisite life changes that enable her to provide a 

safe and stable home for her children, thereby negating any present and future 

emotional and physical danger to her children.” Although Mother leased a home, 

which was in considerably better condition than her initial home and did not appear 

to pose a danger to the children, she did not lease the property until February 2023, 

a year after the children were removed from her home, and she did not have beds 

with mattresses for the children before the last day of trial. See In re S.R., 452 
86

S.W.3d 351, 368 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (stating 

“factfinder may conclude that a parent’s changes shortly before trial are too late to 

have an impact on the best-interest determination”); see also In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 

470, 476 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (holding father’s “efforts to 

improve his ability to effectively parent on the eve of trial [were] not enough to 

overcome a decade of poor parenting and neglect” for purposes of best-interest 

analysis).

Mother suggests that her history of drug use does not weigh in favor of a 

finding that termination of her rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest because 

she enrolled herself in an outpatient program to address her marijuana use and “there 

is no evidence in the record that [she] used marijuana in her children’s presence or 

while she was caring for them, or that she was ever impaired while caring for the 

children.” We disagree. A parent’s use of illegal drugs may constitute endangering 

conduct because “it exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be 

impaired or imprisoned.” Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 

S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied); see also In re

J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345 (“[A] parent’s use of narcotics and its effect on his or her 

ability to parent may qualify as an endangering course of conduct.”). It is not 

necessary that the drug use occur in the presence of the child or that the parent 

actually be impaired. See In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d 822, 831 (Tex. App.—Houston 
87

[1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (“Because it significantly harms the parenting 

relationship, drug activity can constitute endangerment even if it transpires outside 

the child’s presence.”). In addition, Mother did not enroll in an outpatient substance 

abuse program to address her marijuana use until after she tested positive for drugs 

during trial. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 368 (stating “factfinder may conclude that 

a parent’s changes shortly before trial are too late to have an impact on the bestinterest determination”).

With regard to Mike, the record reflects that Mike requested that Mother’s 

parental rights to him be terminated. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (identifying

desires of child as best interest factor). Mike has been living with Father G since 

August 2022, and by all accounts, Father G is keeping Mike safe and meeting his 

needs. Mike is bonded with Father G and he asked the trial court to change his 

surname to Father G’s surname. The record reflects that Mike is happy with Father 

G, he is doing well, and he has not lived with Mother for eighteen months. See In

re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.)

(“Evidence that a child is well-cared for by a foster family or a proposed adoptive 

placement, is bonded to the proposed placement, and has spent minimal time in the 

presence of the child’s parent is relevant to the best interest determination and, 

specifically, is relevant to the child’s desires.”). The Department did not have any 
88

concerns about Mike’s placement with Father G or express any concerns about 

Father G’s parenting abilities. 

Ivan, who is four years old, has been diagnosed with autism, developmental 

delays, and encephalopathy, and he is receiving speech and occupational therapy to 

address his needs. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(1) (identifying child’s age and 

physical and mental vulnerabilities as best interest factor); In re D.D.M., No. 01-18-

01033-CV, 2019 WL 2939259, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2019, 

no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Evidence of this factor generally demonstrates what the 

children’s physical needs are, specifically any special physical needs, and whether 

the parent seeking custody [is] willing and able to meet those needs.”). He is in a 

special needs foster home with licensed caregivers, and although it is not an adoptive 

placement, the foster home is meeting all of Ivan’s extensive needs. See In re E.C.R., 

402 S.W.3d at 250 (stating courts “examine the entire record to decide best interest” 

and “lack of evidence about [specific] definitive plans for [the] permanent placement 

and adoption” of children not dispositive in best-interest analysis) (internal 

quotations omitted)); In re T.C., No. 01-17-00497-CV, 2018 WL 4126600, at *26 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[T]he fact 

that [the child] is not currently in a long-term or permanent placement is not a 

dispositive fact.”). 
89

Ivan, who was mostly non-verbal when he came into care, is beginning to use 

some verbal expressions, attending Pre-K, and his socialization skills have improved 

since moving to his current placement. According to Piaskowski, there are other 

children in Ivan’s current foster home that “he connects with, and . . . [Ivan] seemed 

to be very happy and doing very well.” Although he wore a diaper when he came 

into the Department’s care, Ivan’s potty-training is progressing well in his current 

placement. 

When a child is too young or unable to express his desires, like Ivan, the fact 

finder may consider that “the child has bonded with the foster family, is well-cared 

for by them, and has spent minimal time with the parent.” See In re I.L.G., 531 

S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). Although 

there is no evidence that Ivan is bonded with his current foster family, he is happy 

in his current placement, which is meeting all of his needs, and Ivan had not lived 

with Mother for over a year and half when trial ended.

Ivan’s young age also weighs in favor of the trial court’s finding that 

termination of Mother’s parental rights is in his best interest. See In re A.L.B., No. 

01-17-00547-CV, 2017 WL 6519969 *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. 

denied) (mem. op.) (stating children’s young ages—five and six years old—rendered 

them vulnerable if left with parent unable or unwilling to protect them or attend to 

their needs).
90

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, 

we conclude the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that 

termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest. See

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. Further, in view of the entire record, we conclude 

that the disputed evidence is not so significant as to prevent the trial court from 

forming a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mother’s parental rights was 

in Mike’s and Ivan’s best interest. Id.; see also In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 

S.W.3d at 674. 

We overrule Mother’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s decree of termination. 

Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.