### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 21 - 00342 - CV

R. M. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 316,896 - B , THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES , JUDG E PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
R.M. (Mother) appeals from the trial court ’ s fin al o rder terminating her parent al rights to her daughter A.H. , who was removed from her parents ’ care in March 2020 after the Texas Department of Family a n d Protective Services (Department) received a report alleging physical negl ect and negle ctful sup ervision related to incidents of dom estic abuse and illegal drug use. 1 After a hearing , an associate judge determined that termination of Mother ’ s parental

r i g h ts was in A.H. ’ s best int erest and t hat Mother knowingly pla ced and allowed A.H. to remain in conditions and surroundings that endangered her physical and emotional well

- being, knowingly placed A.H. with individuals who engaged in conduct that endan gere d h er physical and emotional well

- being, and failed to comply with the provisions of a court order establishing the actions necessary for Mother to regain c ustody. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

1 T o pro tect the child ’ s pri vacy , we will use the child ’ s initials when referring to her and will refer to her family members by their relationships to her

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.0 02(d) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.8

. Although Father ’ s rights were also terminated, he is no t a party to this appeal.2

(E) , (O), (b)(2)

. Following this ruling, Mother sou g h t a de novo hearing reg arding the best

interest determination. See id. § § 201.015 , .2042

. At the time of the de novo hearing, A.H. was seven years old. After the de novo hearing, the trial court issued a decree terminating Mothe r ’ s pa rental rights and fin din g that termination is in A.H. ’ s best interest. On appeal, Mo ther

co ntends that the tri al court ’ s best

- interest determination is not supported by legally or factually sufficien t evidence. W e will affirm the trial court ’ s order.

BACKGROUND Dur ing th e de no vo hearing con cerning Mother ’ s parental rights to A.H. , Mother and an employee for the Department, Sherri Duirden

- Jones, both testi fied, and the trial court admitted into evidence the remova l affidavit p r epared by a Department employee, the fa mil y service plan, and the Department ’ s final report regarding the status of the case.

In the removal affid avit, a Department i nvest igator averred that on March 25, 2020, the Department received a re por t a lleging physical neglect and neglect ful superv ision of A.H., that there w ere methamphetamine “ baggies ” and mu ltiple drug pipes in the home, and that Mothe r was using methamphetamine and appeared hostile to A.H. In addition, the i nvestigator explaine d that s he went to Mother ’ s house the follo wing day and ob served bruise s on Mother ’ s face and arms, which Mother explained were caused by Father punching her during an argument. Further, the i nvestigator related that Mot he r admitted that “ the violence bet ween her and [Fat her] started a few months ago ” and that th e police had already obtained a protective order after she called 911 to report the abuse. The investigat or also stated that the protective o rder went into effect March 10, 2020, and would expire o n May 10, 2020 , and that a police report for a prio r incid ent st ated that Father punched Mother in the face and pushed her into a bathroom door , that3

Mother ha d a bl oody and bruised face, and that Moth er had olde r inju ries that she admitted were from a n ea rlier assault by Fath e r .

The removal affidavit al so docu mente d a subse quent visit by another investigator. In part icular, t he affidavit stated th at the investigator went to the home because Mother ’ s landl o rd called in early April 2020 to report that Father had been living in the home for a week even tho ugh ther e was a prote ctive order in place and that the re was “ yelling com ing from inside the home. ” When the investigator talked with Mother , she denied seeing Father, but the investi gator l ater fou nd Father in the bedro om and conf irmed his ident ity. Whe n the in vestigator asked Mother why Father had been living at the home, Mother explained that she ha d been with Fathe r since middle s chool and inqu ired what was she “ suppose d to do? ” Further , the investigator talked with A.H. , who stated that her parents fight “ with their hands a lot , ” that Fat he r hits Mother, and that she has seen Mother with blood on her face. Additionally, the affidavit s ta ted that Mother admitted that she was “ doing Meth amphetamines with [Fathe r] in their home where [A.H. ] lives ” and that Mo ther tested positive for m ethamphetamin e and

a mphetamines in April 2020.

T he service plan for Mot her from May 2020 required her to have supervis ed visits with A.H., submit to weekl y drug test ing , submit to a substance

- abuse assessment , have a
ps ycho logic al evaluation, and partici pate in counseling . The plan also list ed the Department ’ s

conce r n that Mother will continue using illegal drugs and prohibited Mother from using illegal dr ugs and from associating with individuals engaged in illegal acti vities

. T he plan de tail ed the Department ’ s con cerns that Mother will continue to be involved i n an abusive relatio nship with Father , whi ch had resulted in “ significant injuries ” to Moth er .4 The final report from March 202 1 detai led that Mother had pa rticipated in weekly therapy sessions , ha d been discharged from t herapy , and had submitte d to weekly drug testing but had not partic ip ate d in a ps ychological evaluation. Further , the report docu mented that Mother tested positive for cocaine in January 202 1 , admitted t hat she went to h er brother ’ s house and l earned that his roommate uses c ocaine, and stated that she ha d sex with some one who she later learned w as using cocaine. In addition, the report sta t ed that Mother “ rekindled her relationship with ” Fat her in June 2 02 0 ; that Father subsequently assault ed Mother, which resulted in her su ffering a black eye and his being arrested ; a nd that Mother request ed that the charges against F a ther be dropped

. Further, the report chronicled that A.H. tol d the Depart ment that Fa t her “ taught her ho w to kill herself by cutting her wrists. ” Moreover, t he report documented that Mother had moved into a new home , that the case worker noticed some of Father ’ s belongings in the new home in Septembe r 2020 , and that the case wor ke r did not s ee Father ’ s belongings in the home in November 2020

.

Add itionally, the r eport indicated that Mothe r is now employed with a seni or healthcare company , l ives in a clea n apartment that has a room for A.H. , and has po sitive visits with A.H. fo r which she “ pr ovides sna cks, arts and crafts

. ” The report al so stated that Mother ’ s sub stance

- abuse assessment from July 2020 indicated tha t substance

- abuse treatment was not needed . However, the report also documented the Departmen t ’ s concerns that Mot her continue s
t o associate with individuals who use illegal drugs and to be in a relation ship with Father

even though it exposes her to vi olence and drug use in the home and even though A.H. was

“ traumatized by the abuse that she witne sse d while in the car e of her parent s. ”

At the de novo hearing, Duirden

- Jones testified that she works for the Depart ment and that the Department recomm ended that Mother ’ s parental rights be terminated. In her5

testimony, Duirden

- Jones explained tha t although Mo ther com plied with the direc tive to submit to drug testing, she teste d positive for c ocaine i n Ja nuar y 2021, which w as after A.H. had been removed from her custody. Further, Duirden

- Jones discussed how Mother h ad a problem with drugs and test ed positive f or metha mphetamine and amphe tamines early in the case . In additi on, Duirden

- Jones testified that the Department had concerns that A.H. would cont inue to be exposed to dom estic abuse because Mothe r got back together with Father after A.H. had been removed , leading to a n incident of d omestic abuse with in a week and resul ting in inj uries to Mother ’ s fac e , and because Mother was trying to get the charges against Father st emming from that incident dropped

. Duirden

- Jones descr ibed th e dome stic abuse as “ very significan t and v ery severe. ”

In addition, Duirden

- Jones discus sed how when she went to Mother ’ s new home in September 202 0, she saw Father ’ s clothes hangi ng in the closet , which she though t was

u nusual because Mother had recently m oved in and had not u npacked a ll of her own belongin gs ; h owever, Duirden

- Jones also testifie d t hat Mother stated F ather ’ s relative was going to pick up the clothes from the home

. Duirden

- Jones re lated that a lthoug h Mother denied still being involved with Fathe r during th e visit , Mothe r received a phone cal l from someone nicknamed “ M y H ubby ” in the contacts on her phone and later admitted that the caller was Father. Further, Duirden

- Jones explained that Mothe r w as not honest about her involvement with F ather , that Father call ed and tex t ed during other visit s , and that one te xt from Fathe r stated tha t he was waiting for Mother in the parking lot next to the Depa rtment
. Mo reover, Duirden

- Jones testifi ed that Fat her is currently in jail and th at Mother would like ly be with Father if he we re not in jail.

Addi ti onally, Duir den

- Jones sta ted that Mother ha d partially complied with the family plan by having visits with A.H. and by participating in drug testing, cou nse ling, and a6

substance

- abuse assessment

. Duirden

- Jones also noted that Mot her had been discharged from individua l counseling and that the s ubst ance - abuse assessment indicate d that no additional services were needed at the time of the assessment

. Further , Duirden

- Jones testi fied that Mother ’ s home was clean and had a room for A. H. and that Mother maint ained empl oy ment during the c ase.

Reg arding A.H., Duirden

- Jones testified that she is currently in a fost er home with parents who are planning to a dop t her. Although Duirden

- Jones explained that A.H. had only been in the home f

or a few weeks and had b ee n transferred to this new fos ter home because she started acting out by lying and stealing, Duirden

- Jones also related that A.H. is current ly in t h er apy for those issu es , that the issues can be successful ly treate d in therapy, and that the Department wil l be able to transition A.H . to a forever home

. Regarding Mother ’ s visi ts with A.H., Duirden

- Jones explained that Mother would bri ng activit ies for them but allowed A .H. to do whatever she wanted and acted more like a friend than a parent.

After Duirde n - J ones finished testifying, Mother was called to the stand . In her testimony, Mother admitted that she calle d the police about an act o f abuse in March 2020 in which Father s lam med her into a wall and punched h er eye and th at A.H . was in the home at the tim e. Simil arly, Mother testified about two incid ents later th e same month . In the first, Father punched her and thre w her to the gr ound, causi ng her to sustain in juries from that assault. In the second , Mothe r called the police after Father punched he r in the fa ce again

. Mother admitted that A.H. was in the home during the second inciden t, clarified th at she “ never said [A.H. ]

was safe ” from the abuse , and acknowledged that witnessing the violence hurt A.H. Mother desc ribed an other incid ent of abuse in J une 2020 after A.H. had been removed from the home in which she st a ted tha t one week after she got back together with Father , he punched he r and “ gave7

[her] a black eye

. ” Mothe r testified that she subsequently m ove d into her ow n place , change d her phone n umber , and did not tell F ather where she moved. When d iscussing h er dr ug - test results from January 2021, Mother stated that she believes she tested positive because she had

sex with someone who used cocaine.

Additionally, M other testified that she is cu rrently employe d with two senior healt hc are companies while she attem pts to get a nursing assistant ’ s license, makes enough money to supp ort A.H. and her s elf , owns her own car , completed most of the requirements of the service plan , never missed a visit wi th A.H., and will never again risk a positive drug result by interac ting with people who use drugs. When describing her visits w ith A.H., Mot her related that the visi ts went well. Additionally, Mother testified t hat termi nat ion of her parental rights

wa s not in A .H. ’ s best interest, that A.H. want ed to come home , an d that A.H. started misbehavi ng while in foster care.

R e garding her relatio ns hip with Fat her, Moth er related that she is no longer involved with hi m , does not want to be involved with him aga in, and had no fur ther contact with him after the time that he call ed h er on the phone while Duirden

- Jones was at her home for a visit. Fur ther, Mother admitted that she had hu ng a few of Fath er ’ s shirts in a closet in her n ew home bu t explained that she ha d packed them from her pr ior home and that the clothes were gone by t he next time that someone from the Department visited

. Moreover, Mother admitted that Father did te xt her to say that he was waiting for her in the park ing lot next to the Department b ut explained that she did not have a car at the time and that Father ’ s mo ther was picking her up. Mother also admitted that she ha d vi sited Fat h e r w hile he was in jail o n at least thre e occasions to tell hi m when the trial date was, to tell him abou t her decision to req uest a de novo hearing, and t o tell him when th e de novo hearing was scheduled.8 After considering t he evidence prese nted at the hearing, the trial co urt determined that termination of Moth er ’ s parental rig hts was in A.H. ’ s best interest an d rendered a de novo decree terminat ing her parental righ ts . Mother appeals the trial court ’ s order.

STANDARD OF REVIE W AND GOVER NI NG LAW T he Family Code allows a trial court to refer to an associate judge “ any aspec t of a suit over which the court has jurisdiction. ” Tex. Fam. Code § 201.005 . An associate judge
may conduct a hearing, hear evidence, make findings of fact, fo rmulate conclusions of law, and

r ecommend that an order be ren dered. I d

. § 201.007 ; see also id. § 201.204 (setting out powers of ass ociate judge). After an associate judge make s a recommendation , any party may request a

“ de novo hearing befor e the refer ring court ” but must s pecify the issues that will be presented
to the re ferring court. I

d. § 201.015(a)

- (b) . Accordingly, de nov o hearings are limited to the specific issues stated in the hearing request. In re A .L.M.

- F

. , 593 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex. 2019)

. To terminate a n individual ’ s parent al rights, the Department must pr ove by clear and convi ncing evidence that the parent engag ed in conduct listed as a statutory ground for terminat ion in the Family Code and that terminati on is in the child ’ s best inte rest. Te x. Fam. Code § 161.001(b ) ; In re S.M.R. , 434 S.W.3d 576, 580 (T ex. 2014)

. “ ‘ Clear an d convincing evidence ’ means th e mea sure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the tr uth of the allegations sought to be establis hed. ” Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007

. W hen reviewing a terminatio n order, appellate courts de fer to t he fact finder, who , “ hav ing full opportunity to observe witness t estimony first

- hand, is the sole arbiter when asse ssing the c redibility and deme anor of witnes ses. ” In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014)

.9 In le gal

- sufficiency reviews , appellate cou rts con sider undisputed evidence contrary to the finding at issue but assume that the factfinder resolved dispute d facts in favor of the finding. In re A.C. , 560 S.W.3d 624, 630

- 31 (Tex. 2018)

. T he evidence is legall y sufficient

“ if, viewing the evi dence in the light most favorable to the fact

- finding and considering undisputed cont rary evidence, a reasonable factf inder could form a firm belie f or convicti on that the finding was true. ” I

d. at 63 1 . In contra st, f

or f actual

- sufficiency reviews, appellate courts weigh the disputed evidence contrary to the finding against the evi dence supporting the finding and ascer tain whether a reasonable factfinder could ha ve weighed the conflicting evidence in favor of the finding. Id. “ Evidence is factually insuffici ent if, in li ght of the entire record, the disputed evidence a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of a f inding is so significant that the factfinder could not have formed a fir m belief or conviction that the finding
was true. ” I

d. Th e best

- interest prong “ is child centered and focuses on the child ’ s well

- being,

s afety, and devel opment. ” Id. This deter minati on is gui ded by multi ple no n - exclusive factors, including the foll owing: (1) the child ’ s wishes; (2) the child ’ s physical and em otional needs; ( 3 ) the physical and emotional danger to the child now and in the future; ( 4 ) the parental abil ity of the p erson seeking custody; (5) progra ms avai lable to help th at person ; ( 6 ) t h e plans for the child by that person or the agency seeking cu stody ; (7) the stability of the home; ( 8 ) the parent ’ s
act s or omissions indicating that the parent

- child rela tionship is imp roper; and ( 9 ) any excuse for the pa rent ’ s acts o r omissions. Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

- 72 (Tex. 1976) . Evidence perta ining to a statutory ground for termination may also be probative of the best

- interest prong. In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 2 8 (Tex. 2002)

. T he Department ne ed not prove all the factors , and the a bsence of evidence for some of the factors does not p reclude a finding that termination is in10

the child ’ s best interest. Spurck v. Tex as Dep ’ t of Fam

. & Protective Servs

. , 396 S.W.3 d 205, 222 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2013 , no pet.)

.
DISCUSSION

In her sol e issue on appeal, Mothe r contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court ’ s best

- interest determination. As support for that

ar gument, Moth er asserts tha t only limited evid ence was pre sented r egarding A. H. ’ s des ires and present and fut ure needs , highlights testimony from Duirde n - Jones indicat ing that Mot her brought toys and activities during her visits , and references th e portio n of the fin al report stat ing that the visits went well

. Moreover , Mothe r argues th at she pre sented no signs of a present or potential future drug probl em because most of he r drug tests were negative , in dicating that she was sober for months during the pe ndency of th is case, and because the substanc e - abuse
assessment showed no need for s ubstance

- abuse treatment
. R elatedly, Mother emphasizes her testimo ny in which she denied using cocaine and reasoned that she must have tested positive because she w as in close contact with an indivi d ual who used coca ine and notes that the Departme nt never referred her to a dditiona l servic es afte r the positive result. Furt her, Mother points to her testimony describ ing her efforts to stay away fro m Fat her, including moving i nto her own p lace and chan gin g he r phone number after he abused her in J une 2020 , and st at ing that she has no intention of being involved with Father eve r again or subject ing herself to his abuse. When discussing her intera ctions with Fat her, Mother also r efers to her testimony in which s he explained that her therapist recomme nd ed communicating with Father to est ablish a co

- parenting relationship. Additio nally, Mother notes that her new apartment is c lean and has a room for A.H., that she has been consiste ntly employed, that she makes eno ugh mon ey to support A.H.11

and her self , and that she completed most of the se rvice

- plan requirements . M other also argues that Duirden

- Jones ’ s assessment of the stability of her home was based on visits that occurred

mo nths before the termination and emphasizes that there was no evi d ence of any of Father ’ s belongings being in her n ew home after t he September 2020 visit. Fur th ermore, Mother h ighlights that no physician , t herapist, guardian, or attorney ad litem testified at the hearing and th at Duird en - Jones did not specifically test ify about A.H. ’ s best inte rest. In light of the p rece ding , Mother contends that the evidence was legally and factually insuff icient to support the trial
court ’ s best

- interest determination.

In this case, alt hough Moth er testified that A.H. ’ s misconduc t resulted from their separation and that A.H. wan ted to re turn home and a lthough evidence was p resent ed showing that the visits between them went well, there is no direct evidence of A.H. ’ s desires re garding her future pl acement. The trial court may have considered the ch ild ’ s young age at the time of t h e de novo hearing as it pertained to the chil d ’ s ability to express any place ment desires. Howe ver, when deciding that terminati on is in a child ’ s best interest , the tria l court need not have evidence of all the Holley factors. S ee id. ; see also In re W .S.M. , 107 S.W.3d 772, 773 (T ex. App.

— Texarkan a 2003, no pet. ) ( explaining that child ’ s love of his parent is important co nsideration but cannot override ov erwhelming evide nce showing parent engaged in conduct and placed child in conditions endangering his physical and emotional wel l

- bei ng).

Moreove r, Moth er did not challenge the finding s that she kno wingly placed A.H. in condi tions and engaged in conduct that end angered A.H. ’ s well

- being

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)( D), ( E) ; see also In re G.S. , No. 14

- 14

- 00477

- CV, 2014 WL 4699480 , at * 12 (T ex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The un challenged predicate findings under section 161.00 1(1)(E) , endangering conduct, are binding and may be12

considered as e viden ce related to the court ’ s best interest finding ”)

. Further , evidence was presented during the hearing demonstrating that Mother had been in a long

- term abusive relationship, that the abuse was “very severe,” that A.H. was present when the abuse occurred and witnessed “a lot of” abuse between her parents, a nd that the abuse continued during the pendency of this case. M o t h er also tes tified that A.H. ’ s witnessing the abuse hurt her , and the Department ’ s final report documented that Fath er taught A.H. how to engage in a cts of self

- harm

. See In re S.K. A. , 236 S.W.3d 875, 903 (Tex. App.

— Texarkan a 2007, pet. de nied) (explaining that h is to ry of abuse in child ’ s family is relevant to best

- interest determination )

.

Additionally, evidence was p resented establish ing that Mot her used multiple drugs near the time of removal, told a D epartment employee that she had used methamp hetamine with Fath er in the home while A.H. li ved there , associated with individuals who use illegal drugs afte r A.H. was removed , and teste d positive for cocaine in January 2021 , which was after A.H. had been remo ved from her custody and just a few months before Mother ’ s rights were terminat ed

. S ee In re C.A.J. , 122 S.W.3d 888, 893 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) ( noting that parental drug use is rel evant to best

- interest determination) ; see also In r e M

. A .J. , 61 2 S. W.3d 398 , 407

- 08 (T e x. App.

— Houst on [ 1st Dist. ] 2020, pet. deni ed ) ( determini ng that evidence of pos itive drug t ests after receiving referral tha t p arent used narco ti cs was sufficient
t o s upport findi n g of endangerment ) ; In re C.V.L. , 591 S.W.3d 734, 751 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2019, pet. denied) (explaining that evidence that parent eng aged in drug use during penden cy of termination suit when parent is at risk of losing chi ld is sufficient evide nce to support

e nda ngerment finding); In re F.A. R

. , No. 11

- 04

- 00014

- CV, 2005 WL 181719, at *4 ( Tex. App.

— E astland Jan. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem. o p.) (noting that evidence of “ continued d rug use13

. . . demonst rates an inability to p rovide a stable environmen t for [child] and an inability to provide for hi s emotional and physical needs ” )

.

In her te stimony, Mother did deny that term ination of her p arental rights was in A.H. ’ s best interest, but she did not pro vide additional su pport for that assertion. A lt hough Mother testified that she tested positive for cocaine because she was in close contact with someone who used cocaine, the trial court was c har ged with making credibility determi nations and with resolving confl icts in the evidence. See In re A.B. , 43 7 S.W.3d at 503 ; see also In re K.M.R. , No. 14

- 17

- 0 0651

- CV, 2018 WL 614762, at * 12 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 30, 2 018, pet. denied ) (m e m. op.) (“As sole arbiter of credibility and demeanor, the trial court was free to credit positive test result s o ver Father’s denial of cocaine use ”)

. Similarly , although Mother testified that she d id not plan to become roma ntically i nvolved again with F a ther, that she continu ed communicating with Father only to establi sh a co

- par en ting relationship, and that she had no more involvement with Father after S eptembe r 2020 , the trial court had to weigh the credibility of that testimony. Cf. In re D.M.M. , No

. 14

- 16

- 00664

- CV, 2017 WL 61847, at *6 (T ex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 5, 2017, pet. denied ) (mem. op.) (n oting that factfinder is in best p osition to assess credibility of parent ’ s exc uses).

When assessing Mother ’ s credibility , the trial court could h a ve considered evidence that Mother attempt ed to conceal her ongoing re lationship with Fat her after a p rot ective order had been issued and indicated that she b e lieved she did not hav e a c hoice but to continue the relatio nship ; attempted to re kindle th e relationship and live with Father in June 2020, which resulted in her being inju red and his being arrested fo r assa ulting her; request ed that the char ges against F ather be dropped; continued to co mmunicate with Father after A.H. was removed; labeled Fath e r as “ My Hubby ” in her phone; and had Father ’ s clothing hanging in a closet in her14

new home even though she ha d not fully unpacked he r own belongings

. I n addition , the trial court was also presented with evidence showing tha t Fath e r wa s in jail for much o f the time in which Mother claimed that they were no lon ger involved and admitted that she visited him in jail at least three times around the t ime that the as soci a te judge recommended terminating her parental rights. Cf. In re J.A.M. , No. 14

- 18

- 00528

- CV , 2018 WL 6217376, at * 9 (Tex. App.

— Houst on [1 4th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that th ere was conflicting evidence regarding mother ’ s conti n ued involvement with abusive part ner and that “ [a ] fact finder may infer from a parent ’ s pa s t ina bility to meet the children ’ s physical and emotional needs an inability or unwillingness to meet the chil dren ’ s needs in the future ” ).

Moreover, al though Mo t her correctly points out that s he complied with many of the terms of her service plan, wa s empl oyed, testified that she earned enough money to prov ide for A.H. and her self , and moved into a clean home with room for A.H. , “ evidence of improved

c onduct .

. . does not conc lu sively negat e the p robative value of a long history of

. . . irresponsibl e choices. ” In re J

.O.A. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009)

. Additionally , even tho ugh the sub stance

- abuse asse ssment initially indicated that no additio nal treatment was necessary , Mother subseque ntly tested positive for cocaine use. Cf. In re M.G.D

. , 108 S.W .3d 508, 513, 514 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dis t.] 2003, pet. denied ) (explaining that “ evidence of a recen t
turn around should be determinative only if it is reas o nable to conclude that rehabilitati on, once begun, will surely continue ” and noting t hat n arcotics abuse issues “ sometimes reapp ear ” ).

Further, even tho ugh the final report by the Department stated that the visits between Mother and A.H. went well and t h at Moth er provided snacks and activ ities , Duirden

Jones testifie d that Mother treate d A. H. like a f riend and would allow he r to do whatever she

w anted. R egarding the Department ’ s plans , Duirden

- Jones testified that A.H. was recently15

placed with a foster f

amily who wants to adopt her. Cf. Hann v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & R egul

. S ervs. , 969 S .W. 2d 77 , 83 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1998, pet. denied) (observing that

“ establishing a stable, permanent home for a child is a compelling interest for the government ” ), disapproved on other grounds by In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 267 & n.39 (Tex. 2002)

. Alth o ugh Duir den

- Jones stated t hat A.H. had begun exhibiting behavior al issues, she also explained that A.H. is be ing treated for those issues and that the Department wi l l be able to transition A.H. to a forev er home. Even tho ugh Duirden

- Jones did not speci f icall y state that termination was in A.H. ’ s best interest, she testi fied r egarding , among other things, Mother ’ s prior d rug use and the history of domestic abuse in t h e family , which was witnessed by A.H., and testified that the Depart m ent r ecommended that Mother ’ s rights be terminated

. See In re D.M. , 452 S.W.3d 462, 4 71 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2014, no pet .) (exp laining that factfinder may make inferences from past c o ndu ct en dangering w ell

- be ing of child when making best

- interest dete r minat ion).

Viewing all the evidence in the light most fa vorabl e to the judgment, we conclude
t hat a fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mot her ’ s parental rights i s in A.H. ’ s best interest. In light of the entir e reco rd, the disputed evidence that a reasonable f

act f inder cou ld not have credited in favor of the best

- interest finding is not so significant that a fact finder could not reasonably have formed a firm be lief or conviction that termination of Mother ’ s p a renta l rights is in A.H. ’ s best interest. Acco rdingly, a fter co nsidering the relevant factors under the appropriate standards of revi ew, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factua l ly sufficient to support the trial court ’ s finding that terminati o n of the parent

child relationship is in A.H. ’ s best interest.

For these reasons, we overrule Mother ’ s i ssue on appeal.16 CONCLUSION Having overruled Mother ’ s sole issue on appeal, we af f irm the trial co urt ’ s de novo decree terminati ng Mother ’ s parenta l righ ts
.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Be f ore Justices Goo dwin, Baker, and Smith Affirmed Filed: Novembe r 18, 2021