Opinion issued December 7, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00479-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF D.V., N.V., V.V., D.V., AND M.D.V., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-00583J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this accelerated appeal, Father1challenges the trial court’s order

terminating his parental rights to his children, “Damon,” “Nelson,” “Virginia,” 

1 The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of Mother; however, she 

is not a party to this appeal. 
2

“Daphne,” and “Mel.”2In his sole issue, Father contends that the evidence is both 

factually and legally insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the 

termination of his parental rights is in the best interest of the children. We affirm.

Background

This appeal concerns five siblings: Damon, born September 2013; Nelson, 

born September 2015; Virginia, born November 2018; Daphne, born May 2020; and 

Mel, born August 2021. 

A. The Department’s Removal of the Children

On April 6, 2022, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the 

Department) received a referral alleging neglectful supervision of the children. 

Earlier that day, police officers had arrived at a motel and observed Mother attempt 

to flee.3 Officers caught and arrested Mother, who appeared to be under the influence 

of drugs. Father was found in the motel room asleep with all the children in the room. 

Upon identifying Father’s name, officers discovered a Child Protective Services 

alert for Father. When officers entered the motel room, they observed a two-yearold child walking on top of a dresser and other children wearing soiled diapers. The 

children appeared unclean and had bruises on their bodies and faces. 

2 We refer to the parties using the pseudonyms adopted by the parties. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 

3 The record does not indicate the basis for the officers’ presence at the motel. 
3

At the scene, officers arrested Father for possession of a controlled substance. 

Mother was taken to the hospital, where she tested positive for opiates and 

amphetamines.4 Upon her discharge from the hospital later that day, officers arrested

Mother for failing to identify herself to a peace officer and evading arrest. Both 

Mother and Father admitted to daily heroin and methamphetamine use. Mother 

admitted to using every two to three hours, and Father admitted to using every eight 

hours. 

The children were also taken to a nearby hospital for evaluation. Though the 

others were quickly released, Virginia was transferred to another facility for 

placement of a feeding tube and further treatment following findings of hypothermia, 

dehydration, and hypoglycemia. At that time, Mother reported that Virginia was also 

epileptic and had a genetic disorder. 

On April 7, 2022, the Department filed its Original Petition for Protection of 

a Child for Conservatorship and for Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child 

Relationship, and the trial court signed an order placing the children in the 

Department’s conservatorship on an emergency basis the same day. Damon, Nelson, 

Daphne, and Mel were eventually placed together in a foster home. Due to her 

ongoing medical needs, Virginia was placed in a separate foster home.

4 The record is silent as to the reason for Mother’s admission to the hospital. 
4

B. Subsequent Proceedings

The trial court then held a full adversary hearing on April 21, 2022 pursuant 

to Texas Family Code section 262.201. Following the hearing, the trial court signed 

a temporary order continuing the conservatorship and instructing Father to comply 

with the Department’s family service plan.

Father’s family service plan was admitted into evidence at trial. The plan 

required that he: (1) maintain stable housing and employment for six months; (2) 

participate in a six to eight-week parenting course until successfully discharged; (3)

build a social support system, including positive family, friends, and social groups; 

(4) refrain from criminal activity; (5) maintain contact with the Department; (6) 

complete a psychosocial assessment; (7) complete a psychiatric assessment; (8) 

complete a substance abuse assessment; and (9) establish a “positive in-home 

network” including “positive relatives to provide support.”

Following a permanency hearing on September 15, 2022, the trial court issued 

an order containing its findings, including that Father posed a continuing danger to 

the health or safety of the children and that returning the children to Father was 

contrary to their welfare. The trial court also found that Father had not demonstrated 

adequate and appropriate compliance with the Department’s family service plan. 

As detailed in a subsequent guardian ad litem (GAL) report admitted at trial, 

Father first responded to the Department’s efforts to contact him in December 2022. 
5

The GAL reported that Father attended the nine-month family group conference by 

phone on January 6, 2023. During the conference, Father reported that he entered an 

addiction treatment center in October 2022, where he spent fourteen to fifteen days 

in detox, followed by twenty-six days in recovery. The GAL stated that Father had 

otherwise failed to comply with his family service plan. Further, the GAL’s report 

noted that on December 27, 2022, Father’s hair follicle test was positive for 

methamphetamines. His urinalysis was negative. Father also reported that he has 

used methamphetamines and cocaine for over ten years. Father stated that to 

maintain his sobriety, he kept busy by longboarding, playing basketball, and going 

on walks. Father was unable to provide the date his sobriety began. When asked 

about the day-to-day life of his children prior to their removal, he refused to answer.

He ultimately left the conference call prior to its conclusion. 

The trial court conducted another permanency hearing on February 16, 2023, 

and for the first time, Father appeared in person. In its subsequent written findings, 

the trial court found that Father had not demonstrated adequate and appropriate 

compliance with the family service plan and that returning the children to Father’s 

home would not be in their best interest. However, the trial court ordered that 

visitation with Father begin upon the recommendation of the children’s therapist. 

The GAL’s March 16, 2023 report, admitted into evidence, again 

recommended that the children remain in their current foster placements. Regarding 
6

Father, the GAL noted that Father testified at the February 16, 2023 hearing5that he 

was attending Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous but did not have a sponsor. Though 

he testified that he was on the “first step,” he could not articulate this step. He stated 

he helped Mother deliver all five of his children but Damon, but he could not 

correctly state their dates of birth. He stated that he did not seek any medical 

attention for the children after their births (at least three were born at home). 

Regarding the children, the GAL reported that at their last visit, Damon stated 

that he was “very lucky to be in this home” and was “excited to tell this GAL about 

a recent family vacation.” She noted that Nelson’s “activity level and mood have 

exponentially improved since he has been in [his foster] placement.” Daphne “told 

this GAL with excitement” that she had recently visited “Gogo,” her foster parent’s 

mother, and liked her “big dog.” The GAL observed she and Mel both appeared 

“very bonded” to their foster parents. She again noted that both younger children 

continued to reach normal developmental benchmarks. As for Virginia, who 

remained in her medical needs foster placement, the GAL noted that she continued 

to be assessed for potential blindness and deafness, still received in-home nursing 

care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy, and had several 

upcoming appointments with her various specialists. 

5 The appellate record does not include a transcript from these proceedings. 
7

C. Trial

A bench trial began on April 20, 2023 and continued on May 4, 2023. The 

trial court heard testimony from the following witnesses: (1) caseworker Kyle 

Sanders; (2) GAL Gina Holder; (3) GAL Laurel Burrin; (4) the foster father for 

Damon, Nelson, Daphne, and Mel (Foster Father); and (5) Father. 

1. Caseworker Sanders

The trial court first heard testimony from Kyle Sanders, the Department 

caseworker assigned to the children’s case. Sanders testified that Damon, Nelson, 

Daphne, and Mel were currently placed together in a foster home, while Virginia 

was in a separate, medical needs foster home. Sanders testified that Damon, age nine, 

was in second grade and “doing very well.” Both Damon and Nelson attended onehour weekly therapy sessions at school. Sanders stated that the foster parents were 

able to address all of Damon and Nelson’s physical and emotional needs, that the 

placement was appropriate, and the foster parents were willing to adopt them. 

Regarding the two youngest children, Daphne (age two) and Mel (age one), Sanders 

testified that they were meeting their milestones and were bonded to each other. He 

stated that Daphne did not have any special needs and was up to date on her 

immunizations and pediatric appointments. The four children had visits with their 

sister, Virginia, and were able to appropriately interact with her. 
8

Regarding Virginia, Sanders testified that the Department placed her in a 

separate foster home due to her medical conditions, which include a genetic disorder, 

epilepsy, involuntary movements, and difficulty swallowing which necessitates a 

feeding tube. At the time of trial, her foster family was able to meet her needs and 

desired to adopt her. Sanders stated that at the time of removal, Virginia’s parents 

were not caring for her appropriately and she was “near death.” The parents did not 

take her to her medical appointments or address her medical needs. He explained 

that she was found at a hotel, was malnourished, and required a feeding tube. She 

was placed in a hospital until her medical needs foster home was available. In the 

hospital, Virginia was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and sepsis. 

Sanders testified that the Department had been unable to interact with Mother 

and Father to help them understand their children’s needs. Specifically, Father did 

not contact the agency until December 2022, though the Department made attempts 

to locate him each month prior to December 2022. Ultimately, Sanders testified that 

the Department had an incorrect date of birth for Father. Sanders stated that Father 

had not had any visitation with his children. Initially, the Department could not 

locate him. Following the February 2023 hearing, Father was denied future visits 

due to allegations of prior drug use in the children’s presence, and concerns of 

ongoing drug use. Sanders testified that Father had tested positive for 

methamphetamines in January or December. He also recalled that Father tested 
9

positive for acetylmorphine, which he understood to be heroin.6 When Sanders 

discussed this with Father, he denied using heroin for many months. Father reported 

to Sanders that he had not used heroin since October 2022. He told Sanders that he 

used heroin after the removal of his children because of addiction. Father reported 

that he and Mother used meth together, but he had not used drugs with her since the 

removal. 

Sanders and Father discussed his family service plan in February 2023. Father 

reported ongoing addiction but stated that he had not used drugs since attending 

rehab in October 2022. Sanders confirmed that Father attended rehab when Father 

presented him with a certificate of completion for a 30-day inpatient program. 

Sanders did not attempt to get any further information from the facility about 

Father’s treatment. 

Sanders testified that after rehab, Father participated in a substance abuse 

assessment, which recommended: intensive outpatient treatment; Alcoholics 

Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous weekly; obtaining a sponsor; psychiatric 

treatment, with medication, if necessary; individual counseling; refraining from 

illegal activity; parenting classes; and stable employment. Sanders stated that at the 

time of trial, Father was in jail following arrest for possession of a controlled 

6 According to hair specimen drug test results admitted at trial, Father tested positive 

for “6-acetylmorphine” in February 2023. 
10

substance, evading arrest, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Sanders stated 

that Father could not complete the recommended services while in jail, nor did he 

believe Father could be employed while in jail. Sanders testified that though Father 

presumably knew he was facing these charges because they were “old previous 

charges,” Father did not disclose the charges to Sanders or the Department when 

they discussed the family service plan. Sanders attempted to set up the services for 

Father, but the providers were unable to contact him after he was arrested. Sanders 

only learned of Father’s arrest after running a background check. Sanders testified 

that Father had not been convicted of those charges. Prior to these charges, Father’s 

most recent conviction was in 2004.

Sanders testified that he did not visit Father’s home before Father went to jail; 

therefore, Sanders did not know whether it was suitable or safe for the children. 

Sanders was likewise unable to verify Father’s employment and was not aware that 

he had been working cutting hair. Sanders testified that Father was only able to 

complete the substance abuse assessment before he returned to jail—he did not 

complete any other services required by the Department’s family service plan. 

Though Father expressed a willingness to complete the recommended services, and 

Sanders explained to him the importance of doing so to regain possession of his 

children, Father tested positive for drugs following drug treatment. Before Sanders 

could get Father scheduled for his substance abuse group and individual counseling, 
11

Father returned to jail. Sanders testified that the fact that Father continued to engage 

in drug use after the filing of the termination case was “concerning” to him because 

Father could be impaired and unable to care for his children. 

Sanders stated that Father asked about the well-being of his children and his 

ability to see them during the previous court session. Father did not provide Sanders 

with any possible relative placements for the children, and no relatives or family 

friends had come forward to request placement of the children. He stated that from 

speaking with the children, they were “very happy in their current placement.” He 

acknowledged that Virginia was unable to express her desires but was “doing very 

well” in her foster home. Sanders stated that all her needs were being met, and he 

had no concerns about the foster family’s ability to keep up with her numerous 

medical appointments. Sanders noted that the two foster families did a “good job” 

in making sure the siblings remained in contact. He explained that Damon and 

Nelson were very worried about Virginia because they often served as her 

caretakers. Sanders testified that Damon and Nelson were very happy once they saw 

that Virginia was doing well. 

Sanders opined that Father could not meet the children’s emotional and 

physical needs. He also expressed concern that Father would expose the children to 

dangerous individuals or environments and risk their safety through his drug use. He 

described their current placements as “safe and stable.” 
12

Sanders noted that prior to their removal from the motel, the children had not 

been in school. He testified that they had “made leaps and bounds” in their education 

after being placed in foster care. Sanders stated that Father has not demonstrated the 

parental abilities necessary to care for the children. Further, he did not attend the 

parenting classes required by his family service plan. 

Sanders acknowledged that the Department’s goal is always reunification of 

children and parents; however, in this case, he recommended that Father’s parental 

rights be terminated because the foster parents desired to keep the children 

permanently, and this was in their best interest.

2. GAL Holder

The trial court also heard testimony from GAL Gina Holder, the GAL for 

Damon, Nelson, Daphne, and Mel. She testified that although Mother and Father 

were unable to meet their needs, following removal, the children were “doing 

wonderful.” Holder noted that the children were attending therapy and progressing. 

She recommended that they remain in their current placement and that Mother and 

Father’s rights be terminated so the foster parents could adopt them. Holder testified 

that this would be in the children’s best interest because they were thriving in their 

placement and had bonded with their foster parents. She explained that now, the 

children “know what it’s like to have a meal, every meal” and “know they are going 

to get fed.” She noted that they had a place to sleep, toys, and referred to their 
13

“forever Dad,” “Dada,” and “forever home.” The children were happy in school and 

with daily structure and routine. 

GAL Holder testified that she met with Father in jail. He expressed to Holder 

that he would have difficulty caring for Virginia due to her special needs. 

3. GAL Burrin

GAL Laurel Burrin testified concerning Virginia’s placement. She testified 

that she believed Virginia’s foster placement was meeting all her needs. She 

explained that Virginia’s condition had improved significantly following her 

removal from her parents. Burrin testified that the first time she saw Virginia in the 

hospital, she weighed eighteen pounds. She could not move or hold her head up, 

even though she was three years old. She recalled that Virginia was diagnosed with 

a seizure disorder and pneumonia, was dehydrated, malnourished, and had a 

generalized developmental delay. Initially, Virginia’s medical team was unsure if 

she could see or hear. Burrin testified that a recent test determined that Virginia had 

full hearing. 

Burrin described Virginia’s therapeutic needs, stating that she was trying to 

learn to stand up and walk and was still experiencing small seizures. Burrin testified 

that at the time of trial, Virginia weighed 38 pounds and “look[ed] like a 4-yearold,” not a baby. She noted Virginia was able to move, and her hair was growing 

back. Burrin recommended termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights so 
14

that Virginia could be adopted by her foster family. She believed this was in 

Virginia’s best interest, given the lack of medical attention she received with Mother 

and Father. She testified that the foster family not only met her medical needs, but

also her emotional needs. Burrin noted that Virginia had foster siblings in the home 

and that this was important to her emotional well-being, as were continued visits 

with her biological siblings.

4. Foster Father

The trial court also heard testimony from the foster father for Damon, Nelson, 

Daphne, and Mel. Foster Father testified that the children have expressed a desire to 

remain in the foster home and confirmed that he was willing to adopt the children if 

permitted. He explained that the children are bonded with his extended family and 

friends. Foster Father testified that they endeavored to schedule a visit with Virginia 

every other week, depending on her health. Additionally, Virginia is included in 

holiday and birthday celebrations. Foster Father stated that Damon reported trying 

to care for Virginia by giving her food and, out of all the children, he has shown the 

most worry about her. 

Foster Father also testified about an incident that occurred when they took the 

children to a hotel on a family trip. When Daphne misbehaved, Foster Father placed 

her in timeout. He testified that Nelson then asked why he did not put Daphne in a 
15

closet, because, in Nelson’s words, “that’s what [his] bad dad would do to [them] 

whenever [they] would get in trouble.” 

Foster Father testified that the children had demonstrated improvement 

emotionally, physically, and academically, following their placement in his home. 

5. Father

Lastly, the trial court heard testimony from Father, who acknowledged his 

paternity of all five children. At the time of trial, Father was incarcerated. He testified 

that he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance at the time of the 

children’s removal. He had not yet been convicted and stated his intention to take 

that case to trial. Father testified that he had two other pending charges relating to 

conduct occurring in 2021. Before that, the last time Father was convicted of a crime 

was approximately twenty years prior. Father acknowledged his history of addiction 

and trauma as a child. Father testified that he went to rehab on October 12, 2022 and 

provided proof of substance abuse treatment to the Department. 

Regarding his living arrangements, Father testified that before he was 

incarcerated, he had a home. He stated that he invited the GAL to visit his home, but 

no one came. He testified that upon release, he had a safe and stable home with a 

girlfriend. He stated that they were renting the home but only his girlfriend was 

paying the rent. Father testified that after completing rehab, he worked cutting hair, 

but admitted he could not show any documentation of his income. Father stated that 
16

if he is released, his plan is to “get [his] kids and go back to doing what I was doing; 

cutting hair, being sober.” Father testified that he loved his children very much and 

asked the trial court not to terminate his rights to them. He claimed he made a 

mistake with drugs but was doing better. 

On cross examination, Father testified that Daphne, Mel, and Nelson were 

born at home, but Damon and Virginia were born in hospitals. He claimed that 

Mother did not want to deliver Daphne, Mel, and Nelson in the hospital “because of 

the pandemic and the shots and all that,” so he delivered them at his apartment. He 

later acknowledged that only Mel was born during the pandemic. He denied seeking 

medical treatment for Daphne, Mel, or Nelson after their home births because “[t]hey 

didn’t need any” and were “physically okay.” Father could not testify as to their 

exact dates of birth. He never obtained birth certificates for them. He testified that 

Nelson was currently eight, Daphne was four, and Mel was two years old. Father 

testified that the other children were “[p]robably watching the projector or playing 

video games” during the births. 

Father could not recall the last time Mother took Virginia to the doctor. He 

did not know where Mother was and stated that he quit talking to her because she 

did not want to go to rehab with him. He admitted that they both used heroin and 

methamphetamines. He denied using drugs in front of the children, testifying that 

they both used drugs in the bathroom and “kept it clean.” He testified that he 
17

previously had a home and an apartment, but when his work slowed during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, “it just got bad real fast.” 

Father stated that the children were not in school at the time of their removal, 

but he “[did not] have an answer” when asked why not. Regarding Virginia’s 

medical condition, Father testified that “she wasn’t gaining weight with the tube, so 

[he] would do the keto diet” and try to sit her up and care for her. He disputed that 

she could not hear or see. He stated that he administered Virginia’s medication “all 

day” and “could barely sleep” as a result. He testified that on the day of removal, he 

and Virginia “went to sleep at, like, 3:00 in the morning because the medications, 

like, the last one is at midnight, and we got to do it right at 6:00.” He testified that 

they “were watching Cartoon Network” and “eating brownies.” Father stated that he 

took Virginia’s feeding tube out because she was not gaining weight. 

Father was then questioned about his drug test results. He testified that he had 

been sober since October 12, 2022. When asked about the positive test results after 

that date, he stated that he did not know how he was positive and noted his negative 

results on a blood test and urinalysis. Father denied that he is unable to parent his 

children and disputed that the caseworker reviewed the family service plan with him. 

He claimed he jumped through “[w]hatever hoops [the Department] need[ed] [him] 

to jump through.” 
18

D. Termination

On May 16, 2023, the trial court signed a final decree of termination, finding 

that clear and convincing evidence existed to support a finding under Texas Family 

Code sections 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (N), (O), and (P), and that termination of 

Father’s parental rights to the children was in their best interests.7 This appeal 

followed.

Best Interests of the Children

In his sole issue on appeal, Father contends that the evidence is both legally 

and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that termination of his 

parental rights is in the best interests of Damon, Nelson, Virginia, Daphne, and Mel. 

A. Standard of Review

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 acts or omissions justifying 

termination and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.001(b). The Department must prove both elements—a statutorily prescribed 

predicate finding8and that termination is in the child’s best interest—by clear and 

7 The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children pursuant to 

Sections 161.001 (D), (E), (N), (O), and (P), and found that termination of Mother’s 

rights to the children was in their best interests.

8 On appeal, Father does not challenge any of the predicate findings. 
19

convincing evidence. See id.; see also In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. 

2012). The Family Code defines “clear and convincing evidence” as “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.” TEX. FAM.

CODE § 101.007.

When assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a termination 

proceeding, we consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s 

finding and decide “whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief 

or conviction that its finding was true.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002); 

see City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 817 (Tex. 2005). We assume that any 

disputed facts were resolved in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could 

have done so. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. When “no reasonable factfinder could 

form a firm belief or conviction” that the matter on which the Department bears the 

burden of proof is true, we “must conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient.” 

Id. In reviewing the evidence’s factual sufficiency, we consider the entire record, 

including disputed evidence. Id. The evidence is factually insufficient if, considering

the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have 

resolved in favor of the finding is so significant that the factfinder could not 

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction. Id.
20

We give due deference to the factfinder’s findings, and we cannot substitute 

our own judgment for that of the factfinder. See In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 

(Tex. 2006). The fact finder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and 

demeanor of witnesses. See id. at 109.

B. Applicable Law

Protection of the best interest of the child is the primary focus of the 

termination proceeding in the trial court and our appellate review. See In re A.V., 

113 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2003). A parent’s right 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); 

see In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003). Accordingly, we strictly scrutinize 

termination proceedings and strictly construe the involuntary termination statutes in 

favor of the parent. Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985).

There is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by 

keeping the child with the child’s natural 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.). Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment 

is also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a).

Courts may consider the following non-exclusive factors in reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the best interest finding:
21

(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) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing 

parent-child 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 all of them to support a finding that 

terminating a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest. Id. at 372; In re D.R.A., 

374 S.W.3d at 533.

In addition, the Texas Family Code sets out factors to be considered in 

evaluating the parent’s willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe 

environment, including: 

(1) The child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; 

(2) Whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child’s family or 

others who have access to the child’s home; 
22

(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; 

and

(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, protection from 

repeated exposure to violence even though the violence may not be 

directed at the child, and an understanding of the child’s needs and 

capabilities. 

TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116.

C. Analysis

Father argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support 

the trial court’s best interest finding. Specifically, Father points to his completion of 

inpatient treatment, lack of any criminal charges for over 19 years prior to his current 

charges, and the fact that the Department did not visit his home to evaluate his 

appropriateness or ability to care for his children. He contends that he was “being 

punished for having an addiction” and was “making an attempt to turn his life around 

for his [c]hildren.” 

1. The Children’s Desires, Needs, and Proposed Placement

At the time of trial, the children were too young to testify about their desires. 

Additionally, Virginia is nonverbal. Under such circumstances, the trial court may 

consider evidence that the children have bonded with the foster family, are well 
23

cared for by the foster family, and have spent minimal time with the parent. In re 

L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).

Further, courts have recognized children’s need for permanence through the 

establishment of a “stable, permanent home” as the “paramount consideration” in a 

best interest determination. See In re M.M.M., No. 01-21-00269-CV, 2021 WL 

5365102, at *13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 18, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. 

op.) (citing In re K.C., 219 S.W.3d 924, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet)). 

Thus, evidence concerning the present and future placement of the children is 

relevant to the best interest determination. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 

2002). 

Here, Foster Father testified that Damon, Nelson, Daphne, and Mel expressed 

a desire to remain in his home and had bonded with his extended family. Similarly, 

caseworker Sanders testified that those children were “very happy in their current 

placement,” and GAL Holder noted that the children used terms like “forever Dad,” 

“Dada,” and “forever home” when discussing their foster placement. As to Virginia, 

though her medical condition prevented her from expressing her desires, both 

Sanders and GAL Burrin noted she was doing very well in her medical needs foster 

home and had bonded with her foster family. No witnesses testified that the children 

were bonded with Father or expressed any desire to remain with him. Further, at the 

time of trial, Father had not seen the children since their removal in April 2022.
24

In this case, the trial court could reasonably determine that evidence serving 

as a proxy for the children’s desires weighs in favor of termination. See In re A.J.D.-

J., 667 S.W.3d 813, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, no pet.) (holding 

that where child was too young to express desires, desires are neutral as to bestinterest finding unless there is circumstantial evidence from which factfinder could 

infer desires, such as evidence that child had lived with foster mother most of her 

life, had bonded with her, and was doing well); see also In re T.G.R.-M., 404 S.W.3d 

7, 16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (determining that although 

child under age two was too young to testify, evidence supported inference he had 

not bonded with birth mother because she had not cared for him since two months 

after birth). Further, the stability of the proposed placements for the children also 

weighs in favor of terminating Father’s parental rights. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 

372 (providing courts should consider stability of proposed placement in 

determining children’s best interest); In re M.B.M., No. 01-15-00256-CV, 2015 WL 

5076278, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(holding that stability of placement weighed in favor of termination where children 

were bonded to grandparents, loved grandmother and called her “mommy,” and 

grandmother had been caring for children since removal and desired to adopt them). 
25

2. Children’s Needs and Parental Abilities of Those Seeking Custody

Concerning Damon, Nelson, Daphne, and Mel, the evidence presented at trial 

established that their foster family provided for all their needs, including keeping 

them up to date on medical and dental appointments, getting Damon and Nelson on 

track in school, ensuring that Daphne and Mel met appropriate developmental 

milestones, and caring for their emotional well-being. Similarly, testimony 

demonstrated that Virginia’s foster family met her physical and emotional needs. 

Her caregivers ensured that she attended her numerous medical appointments and 

therapy sessions, and her GAL observed that her condition improved markedly 

following her placement—she more than doubled her weight and became more alert 

and responsive. 

In contrast, Father did not demonstrate the ability to parent the children, 

particularly Virginia, who was described as “near death” at the time of removal. 

Father removed her feeding tube and attempted to feed her brownies. GAL Burrin 

testified that Father expressed concern about his ability to care for Virginia, given 

her medical needs.

Further, evidence presented at trial established that Damon and Nelson, 

though children themselves, attempted to care for Virginia and their younger 

siblings. At the time of removal, Father was charged with drug possession and was 

later incarcerated. He tested positive for drugs even after his completion of a drug 
26

rehab program. Though Father testified that he had a home with a girlfriend, he did 

not present a lease or other proof of residence. Father testified that he was working 

cutting hair but acknowledged at trial that he had not provided any documentation 

of his income. These factors weigh in favor of termination. Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 

372; TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b).

3. Present and Future Emotional and Physical Danger to Children 

and Stability of Home

A parent’s past conduct is probative of his future conduct in evaluating the 

children’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2013, no pet.). 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. In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.).

Here, the trial court heard testimony concerning (1) Father’s criminal history, 

which included charges for possession of a controlled substance, unauthorized use 

of a motor vehicle, and evading arrest (for which Father was incarcerated at the time 

of trial); (2) his history of substance abuse; and (3) his positive drug test results after 

completing a drug rehabilitation program. Caseworker Sanders also testified that he 

was concerned that Father’s drug use could expose the children to dangerous 

individuals or dangerous environments and risk their safety. 
27

The evidence of Father’s drug use, criminal activity, and instability is 

indicative of the present and future physical and emotional dangers posed to the 

children. See Latham v. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 177 S.W.3d 341, 349 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (affirming best interest determination 

and noting mother’s drug use and incarceration “disrupt[ed] any permanency or 

stability for the children”); In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d 822, 834–35 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (holding that parent’s past pattern of drug use 

weighed in favor of finding that termination was in child’s best interest under several 

Holley factors, and was relevant to his parenting abilities, stability of home he would 

provide, emotional and physical needs of child, and emotional and physical danger 

in which child would be placed); In re E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d 251, 266 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (noting factfinder can give “great weight” to 

“significant factor” of drug-related conduct); In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d at 684 

(stating parent’s past conduct was probative of his future conduct when evaluating 

child’s best interest); see also In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d at 471 (stating court may infer 

past endangering conduct may recur if child was returned to parent for purposes of 

determining whether termination is in child’s best interest). These factors weigh in 

favor of termination. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372; TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b).
28

Conclusion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, 

we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that 

termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interests of Damon, Nelson, 

Virginia, Daphne, and Mel. 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 

Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Id.

We overrule Father’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s decree of 

termination. 

Amparo Monique Guerra

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.