W e use appell ant’ s ini ti als pursu ant to appell ate proc edure rul e 9.8
. Tex . R . Ap p. 1 P. 9.8 (b). NO. 07-09 -018 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER18, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF V.M .O. AN D K.A. O., C HI LDR EN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 8- 542,899 ; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY U ND ERW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON This i s a n appea l from an o rd er ter minat ing the parental r ig hts of appel lan t P. O. 1 to hi s c hil dren V.M. O. and K.A.O. after a bench tri al in a proceed ing broug ht by appel lee , the Te x as Depa rtme nt of Fam il y a n d P rotect iv e Services. W e af f irm the trial court’s jud g ment. Back g ro und App ellant ma rried Sara in Octob er 200 0. V.M.O. and K.A.O. a re the ch ildren bo rn to the coupl e dur ing thei r three- y ear marr iag e. V.M .O. w as bor n in 2000, K.A. O. in 2003.See Te x . Pen al Code Ann. § 22.0 4 (Verno n 20 03). 2 The De par

tment’ s p eti ti o n a lso soug ht t er minat ion of Sara’s parental r ig hts and 3 thos e of C. T.’s father . Sa ra si g ned a v olu ntar y rel inq uis hment of

her parent al ri g hts , and the c o u rtt e r mi n a t e d h e r r i g h t s b a s e d o n t h a tre l i n q u i s h me n t
. T h e c o u rta l s o t e r mi n a ted thos e of C. T.’s father , w ho has not appeal ed th e j udg ment of ter minat ion
. 2 Sara al so had a chil d, C .T., w it h her former hus band. C .T. w as bor n i n 1994. I n M ay 2006, appel lan t w as conv ic ted by a jur y of i nju ry

to a c hil d, C .T., and sent enced to fifteen 2 y ears o f impr is onment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. H e w as sti ll se rv ing h is s e n te n ce atth e tim e of th e te rm in a ti o n pro ce e d in g. In April 2 008 , the De partm ento f Fa mily and Protect iv e Services ( “the Dep artm ent ”) f iled a pe tition to termin ate the pare nta l rig hts of app ellant
. On M ay 22, 200 9, th e cou rt 3 held a f inal he aring on the Departm ent ’s pet ition. In add ition to the docu me nta ry ev iden ce of appell ant’ s con viction for h is i nju ry of C. T., th e c our

t hea rd tes ti mony

co ncer nin g that off ense. A ps y c ho l og i s t te s ti fi ed th at C .T ., ni ne y ea rs ol d at th e ti me of th e i nc i de nt, told him app ellantsev erely physically abu sed h im, use d an electrical cord on his back, an d hit him w ith oth er object s. Sara tes ti fied s he and appella nt s moked marijua na to g ether outs ide w hil e the ch ild re n w e re as le e p in sid e th e ho m e . Sa ra a lso te st if ie d th a t ap p e lla n t use d o th e r dr u gs in the past, including spe e d
. S h e f urthe r testif ied ap pellan t slapp ed h er “a fe w times” dur ing thei r marr iag e. She als o testi fied s he found outaboutC .T.’ s i nju ri es the d ay after they oc cur re d. Sh e go t a c all from C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es tel li ng her

sh e neede d to come g et C .T. from s chool
. W hen s he arri v ed, t hey sh ow ed her

C .T.’ s i nju ri es. She desc rib e d t h e m as “[ h]i s b ottom w as li ke full of brui ses l ik e tha t ( ind ic ati ng ), from t heSara al so tes ti fied s he recal led a p rio r in cid e nt i n w hic h C PS c all ed and tol d her 4 appel lan t had punc hed C .T. i n the st omach. T he co urt also spe cif ically foun d tha t the injuries to C .T
. const itute d serious inju ry 5 as cont emplat ed by

se cti on 22. 04 of the Penal C ode. 3 spank ing s. And then on the leg , I saw a br uis e that w as the l eng th of a b elt , t he l eng th of th e fl ate nd o f t he p art of th e be l t. Y ou c ou l d l i te ral l y –y ou c ou l d l i te ral l y

s ee t ha t on h i m. That w as the most horr ify ing day of myl ife.” Sh e tes ti fied appe ll ant t old her C .T. di d not loo k both w ay s g oin g across the street and w as almos t hit
. Appel lan t to ld Sa ra he took C .T
. ho me a nd d i s c i pl i ne d hi m b utd i d no t te l l h er t ha t he h i t C .T
. 4 Sara tes ti fied appe ll ant attempt ed to cor re spond w it h her and the chi ldren after he w as inc ar cerated in 2006. She als o tol d the c our t V. M. O. w as aw are of w hat h appened to C. T. and s ometi mes t old Sara s he remembere d s eei ng appel lan t hur t C .T. S ara fu rt h er tes ti fied that she w as “e xtremely happy ” w it h the pl acementof her three c hil dren w it h her pare nts and t hatsh e v olun tarily relinquishe d her pare nta l ri ghts so thather paren ts could proce ed wi th th e ad opt ion of her children. She test if ied it was in h er children’s be st interest for her r ig hts to her

three c hil dren, a s w ell as appel lan t’ s r ig hts to V.M .O. and K.A. O., be term inate d. T he p sy cholo gist and a thera pist test if ied th at th e children w ere doing w ell in thei r g ra ndparents ’ home and desi re d to re main there. Of the s ev eral predi cat e g ro unds the D epar tment all eg ed s uppor

ted t er minat ion of appel lan t’ s p arental r ig hts , t he c our t found four

to be tr ue, a nd found te rmi nati on w as in the chi ldren’ s b esti nterest
. The final order ter minat ing appel lan t’ s ri g hts w as entered on Ma y 5See Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 161.001 (1 ) (V er non 200 9)
. 6 4 27, 2 009. T hereafter, appel lan t fil ed a moti on for new tr ial thatw as ov er ru led by operati on of law
. This appeal foll ow ed. Ana ly sis Grounds for Ter minat ion The four predi cat e grounds found by the cour t t o s uppor

t t er minat ion , pursuantto sec ti on 161. 001 of the Fami ly C ode, w ere tha t app ell ant:

6 (1 ) know ing ly

pl aced or

kn ow ing ly

al low ed th e c hil dren to remain in condi ti ons o r su rro u n d in gs whic h en d a n ger e d th e ir p h ysica l o r em o ti o n a l well- b e in g; (2 ) eng ag ed i n c onduc t or kn ow ing ly

pl aced the c hil dren w it h persons w ho e n gage d in co n d u ctw h ich en d a n ger e d th eir physi cal or

em o ti o n a l well- b e in g; ( 3 ) had b e e n c o n v i c t e d o r [ h a d ] b e e n p l a c e d o n c o mm u n i t y s u p e r v is ion , includin g def erred ad judicat ion com mu nity supe rv ision, for being criminally re spons ibl e for the death or se ri ous inj ur

y of a c hil d under

the follo w ing sec ti ons of the Pen al Cod e or a d ju d ica ted under

Tit le 3 for condu ct that caus ed th e deat h or

se ri ous inj ur

y of a c h ild and that w oul d c onst it ute a v iol ati on of one o f the foll ow ing Penal C ode s ect ion s: § 22. 021 ( ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t)5 § 22. 04 ( inj ur

y to a c hil d, elder ly

i ndi v idu al, or

di sabl ed i ndi v idu al) ; and (4) knowingl y

engaged in crimina l c ond uct th at ha s resulted in appe llant’s conv ic ti on of an offense and confine ment or i mpri sonmentand ina bil ity to care for t he c hil dren for not l ess than tw o y ears from the date of f il ing the peti ti on. See Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 161.001 (1 )( D) , ( E) , ( L) , ( Q) ( Ver non 200 9)
. Suff ic ien cy

of the E v ide nce Suppor ti ng Termi nati on Cha llenge to the Gr

ounds In ap pel lan t’ s first tw o i ss ues, he c hal len g es the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the g ro unds on w hic h the tr ial co urt det er mined his parental r ig hts sh oul d be ter minated. A par ental -r i g h t s t e r mi n a t i o n d e c r e e m u s tb e b a s e d o n a fi n d i n g o f a tl e a s to n e p re d i c a te g ro u n d a n d a fi n d i n g t h a t t e r mi n a t i o n i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e re s t o f t h e c h i l d
. Te x . F a m. C ode Ann. § 161. 001 ( Ver n o n 2 0 0 9)
. Both ele ments must be es tabl is hed and proof of one ele ment doe s n ot reli ev e the peti ti oner of the b u rd e n of prov ing the other
. Holley v. Ada m s, 544 S.W .2d 3 67, 3 70 ( Tex . 197 6) ; In r e J.O. A., 262 S.W .3d 7 , 22 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2008) , aff’ d as m odi

fied and re m anded, 283 S.W .3d 336 (Tex. 2009 ). As not ed, the trial court foun d in its w ritten ord er thatthe te rmina tion o f app ellant ’s pare n tal r ig hts w as appropr iat e under su bsecti ons (D ), ( E) , ( L) and (Q ) of Secti on 161.001 (1 ). Appell ant, how ev er , has chal len g ed the suff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce suppo rt ingFlowe rs v. Texas Dep’ t of Hum an Reso urces, T a rr a n t Co unt y W elfare Unit , 629 7 S.W .2d 8 91 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 82, n o w ri t)
.

6 ter minat ion onl y

under su bsec ti on (L ) of sect ion 161. 001( 1) , and rais es no appe ll ate compl a i n t r e g a rd i n g t h e c o u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n s ( D ) , ( E ) o r ( Q )
. “ O nlyone predi cat e findi ng under se cti on 161. 001( 1) i s n eces sar y to suppo rta j udg m e nt of term inatio n.” In r

e A
. V
. and J .V. 113 S.W .3d 3 55, 3 62 ( Tex . 200 3)
. If mult ipl e predi cat e groun ds are foun d by the trial court, w e w ill af f irm base d on any one groun d beca use o nly o n e i s n e c e s s a r

y fo r t e r mi n a t i o n o f p a re ntal rig hts
. In r e S. N. , 272 S.W .3d 4 5, 49 (Tex .App. –W aco 2008, no pet.)
. The uncha ll eng ed f ind ing s s uppor ti ng ter minat ion under subse ctions (D), (E) and (Q) are bind ing on us, and suf f ice to sup port th e trial court's 7 jud g ment. See Perez v. Texas Dep 't of Prote ctive & Regu latory Se rvs. , 148 S.W .3d 4 27, 434 ( Tex .App. –El Pas o 2004, no p et.) ; In re L.M. , 104 S. W .3d 6 42, 6 47 ( Tex .App.
– Hou sto n [1s t D is t.] 2003, no p et.)
. See al so In r e A. C. , N o . 0 7 - 0 7 - 0 3 5 4 - CV , 200 8 W L 1744333 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Apr il 16, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). Acc ordin g ly , w e need not address appel lan t’ s c hal len g es to t he s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing ter minat ion under su bsec ti on ( L) , In r

e S. N. , 272 S.W .3d at 49, and w e ov er ru le his first and s econd issues. Cha llenge to the Bes t Inter est s In ap pel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue, h e c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s findi ng that ter minat ion of his parental r ig hts w as in the b esti nterest s o f his ch il dren.At oral argume nt, th e pa rties ma de argume nt conce rning th e possib le ef fect on this 8 c a s e o f In r

e J.O. A. , 283 S.W .3d 3 36 (T e x. 2009)
. W e ag re e w it h the D epar tment that J.O .A. ha s n o ap p lic a ti o n to th is ca se . Ap p e lla n t do e s no t con te n d th e st a tu te requ irin g a sta tement of point s i s u ncons ti tuti onal as appl ied to him, nor does he c ontend he has been depr iv ed of the eff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. Id . at339. See al so In r e A. B., N o. 10 -0 9- 00137- CV , 200 9 W L 34877 90 ( Tex .App. –W aco Oct . 28, 2009, no p et.) ( mem. op.) (a p p lyin g J.O .A. si mil ar ly ). 7 The Dep artment cont ends w e may not cons ide r appel lan t’ s b esti nteresti ss ue on appeal bec ause itw as not i ncl uded i n hi s s tatement of po int s. Sec ti on 263. 405( b) of the Fami ly C ode req uires a par

ty w ho int ends to appeal a final order ter minat ing parental r ig hts to fil e “ a s tatement of t he poi nt or poi nts on w hic h the p arty i ntends to appeal ” w it h the tr ial cour t “ [n]otl ater

than the 15th day

after the date a final order

i s s ig ned [.]” T ex . Fam. C ode Ann. § 263. 405( b) ( Ver non 200 9) . Se cti on 263. 405( i) st ates : “[ t]he appel lat e cour t may not cons ide r any

i ss ue th at w as not s pec if ica lly p re sent ed to the tr ial co urt i n a t imel y fil ed sta tement of the poi nts on w hic h the par ty i ntends to appeal or in a sta tement combi ned w it h a mot ion for n ew

tri al. F or

pur poses of thi s s ubsecti on, a cl aim that a j udi ci al deci si on is co ntrar

y to the e v ide nce or

thatthe ev ide nce is f a ct ual ly or l eg all y i nsuffici ent i s n ot suf f iciently specif ic to preserve an issue for app eal.” Te x . Fam
. Code Ann . § 263 .40 5(i). Here, ap pel lan t fil ed a moti on for new tr ial thatappears t o c ontai n hi s s tatementof poi nts
. W e ag re e w it h the D epar tment that the p lea din g does not spec ific all y presentan is sue chal len g ing the tr ial cour t’ s best int erestfindi ng . The appel lat e i ss ue i s n ot preser v ed for our rev ie w. See In the Inter est of M. G. , N o. 07 -0 9- 0137- CV , 200 9 W L 37354 44 8 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo, Nov em ber 9, 2 009 , no pe t. h.) (me m. op.) (similarly f inding suf f iciency chal len g e to ev ide nce suppo rt ing bes t i nterestfindi ng precl uded be caus e of abse nce of8

is sue in sta tement of point s) . M oreov er , ev en i f w e are mi sta ken and app ell ant’ s p lea din g can be read t o presentsu ch an i ss ue, w e find ithas no mer it
. Lik e tha t s uppor

ti ng the sta tutor il y -e numerated predi cat e g ro unds for te rmi nati on, the e v ide nce suppo rt ing a t ri al cour t’ s fin din g thatt er minat ion of parental r ig hts i s i n the besti nterestof the c hil d mustbe c lea r and c onv inc ing
. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 161.001 ; In Inter est of G.M., 596 S.W .2d 846 , 847 (Tex. 1 980 ). C lear and convincing evidence is t h a tm e asure or degree of proof w hich w ill prod uce in th e min d of the trier of

fact a f irm bel ief or co nv ic ti on as to the t ru th of the al leg ati ons soug ht t o be est abl is hed. In re J.F.C. , 96 S. W .3d 2 56, 2 64 ( Tex . 200 2) ; In r e C .H ., 89 S .W .3d 1 7, 26 ( Tex . 200 2)
. W h e n r e view ing factual findi ng s req uired to be made by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce, w e appl y

a standa rd of

rev iew thatreflect s t his burden of proof . In r e S. M. L., 171 S.W .3d 4 72, 4 76 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th Di st. ] 2005, no pet.) . W hen rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency

of the ev ide nce, w e consi der all of the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the findi ng to deter mine w hether a reason abl e fact finder co uld hav e formed a fir m bel ief or conv ic ti on that the findi ng w as tr ue. Id., citing In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d a t 266 . I n doi ng so, w e assu me the fact f inde r resolved dispu ted facts i n favor of th e f inding if a reason able fact f inde r could do so, and we d isregard a ll evidence thata reason able fact f inde r could hav e di sbel iev ed or

found to hav e been inc re dib le. Id. How ev er , becaus e of the hei g htened sta ndard, w e must also be mindful of any undi sput ed ev ide nce cont ra ry to the fin din g and cons ide r that ev ide nce in our anal y si s. In re J. F. C. , 96 S. W .3d a t 266 ( “D is re g ardin gThe therapi st and Sa ra bo t h re s p o nded t o the D epar tment’ s q uest ion to them abo ut 9 the children’s be st interest . Th e D ep artm entsupe rv isor answered af f irmatively

in respon se to a q uest ion by

the attor ney

ad l it em. 9 und ispute d facts th at do n ot supp ort the f inding could skew the an alysi s of

w het her the re is clear and con v incing ev iden ce”).

Und er a fact ual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e al so must determi ne w hether a factfinder could reason ably fo rm a f irm belief or convi ction a bou t the truth of the alleg a t io n s. In re S.M.L. , 171 S.W .3d a t 476
. W hen review ing a factu al suf f iciency cha llenge, the ana ly sis is so mew hat d ifferent in that w e mustco nsi der al l of t he ev ide nce eq ual ly , bot h di sput ed and und is puted. In r

e J.F.C ., 96 S.W .3d at 266. If , i n l ig ht of the enti re record, t he di sput ed evidence tha t a reaso nab le fact f inde r cou ld noth ave cred ited in favor of th e f inding is so si g nific ant t hat a fact finder coul d not h av e reason abl y formed a fir m bel ief or co nv icti on, then the e v ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent. In r

e S. M. L., 171 S.W .3d a t 476 ( citing In re J.F.C ., 96 S. W .3d at 266 ). A p p e l l a n t ’ s s peci fic c ontent ion i s t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent to s uppor

t t he findi ng bec ause the D epar tment faile d to ask

any wit ness at tr ial w hether ter minat ion of appel lan t’ s r ig hts w as in the b esti nterestof the chi ldren. The re cord does not s uppor

t app ell ant’ s a rg ument. The c hil dren’ s mot h e r Sa ra, th eir therapi st, and the Depa rtme nt’s sup erv isor all testif ied in respo nse t o q u e s t io ning thatit w as in the best intere sts of

the ch ildren tha t the respective paren ts’ rig hts be termin ate d. M oreo v er, 910

nothi ng i n the ca se law

req uires that best int erest be est abl is hed by tes ti mony

respon din g to t hat p reci se q uest ion
. See , e.g ., Holley, 544 S.W .2d a t 370 ; In r e C .H ., 89 S .W .3d a t 28.

In evaluat ing w het her term inatio n is in a child's bestin terest , courts com mo nly app ly a s et of non- ex cl usi v e Holley factors: (1 ) the d esi re s o f the c hild; ( 2) the emoti onal and phy si cal needs of the c hil d now and in the future; ( 3) any emoti onal or phy si cal dang er

to t h e ch il d n o w a n d in t h e f u t u re ; (4 ) th e p a re n t in g a b il it y o f t h e in d ivi d u a ls se e k in g c u s t o d y; (5 ) the p ro g ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t th o se i n d iv idu als to promote t he bes t i nterestof the chi ld; ( 6) the pla ns for th e chil d bythose indi v idu als seeki ng custod y ; (7) the st abi li ty of the home; ( 8) the act s o r o m iss io n s o f the parent t hat may i ndi cat e tha t t he ex is ti ng parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s n ot a proper one; and (9) any

ex cus e for the a cts or

omi ss ion s of the parents
. See Holley , 544 S.W .2d at 372 . In add ition, a co u rt m a y i n f e r th at pa st condu ct endang er ing the w ell being of a chi ld may

recur in the f uture if the c hil d i s retur ned to t he parent. In r

e T .L.S
. , 170 S.W .3d 164 , 166 (Te x .Ap p.– W aco 2005 , no p et.); W il lia ms v . W il lia ms , 150 S.W .3d 43 6 , 4 51 (T ex.App. –Au stin 20 04, pet. den ied). To o, evidence esta blishing the sta tuto ry g roun ds for termin ation ma y also i llustrate thattermin ation is i n the c hil d's bes t i nterest
. In r e D .S.A ., 113 S.W .3d 5 67, 5 74 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2003, no pet.) , citi ng In r e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d a t 24.11

The Holley

factors focus on t he best i nterestof the c hil d, no t t hat o f the parent. Patter son v. Br is t, 236 S.W .3d 238 , 240 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1st Di st] 200 6, pe t. dism 'd); Dupree v. Texas Dep 't Prot. & Reg . Servs ., 907 S. W .2d 8 1, 86 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1995, no w ri t)
. The la w

recog niz es a s tron g p re sumption that the b esti nterestof a c hil d w il l be ser v ed by preser v ing the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p. Swate v . Swate, 72 S. W .3d 7 63, 7 67 (Tex .App. –W aco 2002, pet. deni ed)
. But itrecog niz es als o tha t t he prompt and per manent pla cementof the c hil d i n a s afe env ironment is presu med to be i n the ch il d’s bes t i nterest
. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 263.307 ( Ver non 200 9) ; In r e J.F., N o . 0 2 - 0 8 - 0 1 8 3 - C V , 2 0 0 9 WL 806 889 , *6 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth March 26 , 200 9, no pet. ) ( me m. op.). As note d, S ara, t he th erapi st, and the D epar tment
su per v is or al l tes ti fied i t w as in t h e bes t i nterest s o f the c hil dren for appel lan t’ s p arental ri g hts to be te rmi nated. Their opi nio ns are suppo rt ed by the ev ide nce that the c hil dren had a good ho me with their ma terna l g rand pare nts an d de sired to rem ain w ith the m. The court w ell co uld hav e c onsi dere d a p p e llant’s co nv ic ti on for inj ur y to C. T. to ind ic ate a r is k o f dang er from s imi lar

acti ons by

appell ant in the f uture, and to cas t doubt on hi s p arenti ng a b il it ie s . T h e e vid e n c e o f V
. M. O
. ’s m e m o ri e s o f s e e in g a p p e ll a n t h u rt C. T
. c o u ld h a ve ind ic ated to t he tr ial co urt t h a t th e parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p w as not a proper one. Appel lan t i s s er

v ing a fifteen- y ear

pr is on se n te nce for i nju ri ng C .T. W hil e i ncarcerati on alo ne i s n ot a suffici ent b asi s o n w hic h to ter minat e hi s r ig h ts , it is a n addi ti onal factor b e ar ing on t he bes t i nterest of chi ldren. S e e R o g e r s v . D ep a r t m e n t o f Fam il

y a nd Prote ctive Services, 175 S.W .3d 370 , 378 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1 Dist.] 2005 , pet . dism’d st12

w .o.j .) ( mem. op.) ( noti ng len g thy pr is on sent ence as factor i n bes t i nterestanal y si s)
. See als o In re E.P ., Nos. 13-06 -033 -CV, 13-06 -034 -CV, 200 8 W L 4 5 8 509 , *4-5 (Te x .Ap p.– Corpus Christi Feb. 21 ,20 08, no pe t.) (mem . op. ) (f inding f if tee n-y ear sen ten ce prima ry fa c t o r re garding best interest s). Th e evidence of app ellant ’s history

of v iolence against w om en b ears on his ability to provide a stab le hom e for h is ch ildren. T he reco rd ind ic ates appel lan t w as conv ic ted o f sex ual as saul t i n 1993, an o ff ense re q uiring h im t o re g is ter as a sex offender in Tex as, and of mi sdemeano r ass aul t of hi s ex -wif e in 19 95. Sara te stif ied appe llant sl app ed her during the ir ma rriag e and testif ied the tw o en gaged in drug use ou tside th e ho me w hile the c h ildren w ere inside asleep . The ev iden ce also indicat es ap pellan t did little to pro v ide for his children or en sure the y were ca red for w hile he w as inc ar cerated. Evi den ce con t ra ry t o t he f inding include s app ellant ’s dem onst rated interest in his chi ldren and ev ide nce he took adv antag e of prog ra ms des ig ned t o i mprov e hi s p arenti ng skills, i nclud ing a parent ing cl ass an d a stress m ana geme nt class. Conside ring all the evidence in rela tion to the best inte rest facto rs in the lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the cour

t’ s f ind ing s, w e concl ude a re asona ble tri er of factcould hav e formed a fir m bel ief or

co nv ic ti on th at t er minat ion w as in the c hil dren’ s b esti nterest
. And v iew ing all the evidence in a n eut ral light, w e conclu de tha t the d ispute d an d un dispu ted ev iden ce favoring and disfavoring the f inding perm its a reason able factf inde r to form a f irm conv ic ti on and bel ief tha t t er minat ion wa s i n V. M. O. and K. A.O. ’s bes t i nterest s. The ev ide nce suppo rt ing the cour t’ s fin din g thatter minat ion of appel lan t’ s p arental r ig hts w asOur conclu sion app ellantd id nothave a merito rious argume nt th at th e evidence 10 suppo rt ing the tr ial co urt’ s b esti nterestfindi ng w as ins uff ic ien t provide s a n addi ti onal re a so n fo r f in d in g In r

e J.O. A. , 283 S
. W
. 3 d 3 36 d oes n ot af fect ou r disposition of

this app eal. 13 in the c hil dren’ s b est int erest s is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. See Holley, 544 S.W .2d 367; In r e S. M. L.D ., 150 S.W .3d 754 , 756 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 200 4, no pet .). W e overrule appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. 10 Hav ing ov er ru led eac h of appell ant’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice