IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00254-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.L.H. AND A.H., CHILDREN

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-D201500336

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court signed an order terminating the parental rights of H.L.H.’s father

(alias Chad) and H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s mother (alias Mia) after a second termination trial.

1 

A jury found that both Chad and Mia had violated Family Code subsections 

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. 

Chad and Mia appeal in six and five issues, respectively. We will affirm.

Relevant Evidence

The Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) received the 

first referral regarding this family in November 2004, when Chad’s and Mia’s daughter 

 

1 The parental rights of A.H.’s father were terminated after the first termination trial.
In re H.L.H. Page 2

H.L.H. was three years old and Mia’s son A.H. was five months old. The Department 

was thereafter regularly involved with the family throughout the next ten years, and the

trial court eventually conducted a bench trial in December 2014 on the Department’s 

petition for termination of Chad’s and Mia’s parental rights. The trial court, however,

signed a final order on December 20, 2014, dismissing the allegations against Chad and 

Mia and denying the termination of their parental rights. 

Department investigator Caley Croy testified that then ten-year-old A.H. was 

returned to Mia from foster care at that time but that then thirteen-year-old H.L.H. was 

in a detention center. Chad explained that the Department had placed H.L.H. in a 

residential treatment center and that, while there, she had set another person’s clothes on 

fire; H.L.H. had therefore been arrested for arson and placed in a juvenile correctional 

facility. Chad testified that he was also in jail when the first termination trial concluded 

because he had been arrested in November 2014 for missing a home visit with his parole 

officer.2 Chad stated that he was then “hit” with a charge of unauthorized use of a motor 

vehicle but that it was subsequently dropped, and he was released. Shortly after Chad

was released, he, his father (alias Ray), Mia, and A.H. picked up H.L.H. from the 

detention center. Mia and Ray testified that they picked up H.L.H. on January 8, 2015.

Croy testified that the Department received the next referral regarding the family

on March 16, 2015. The referral involved concerns that Chad and Mia were neglectfully 

 

2 Chad had been imprisoned in 2004 when H.L.H. and A.H. were three years old and about three months 

old, respectively. Chad had been paroled in January 2013 when H.L.H. and A.H. were eleven and eight 

years old, respectively. 
In re H.L.H. Page 3

supervising H.L.H. and A.H. and that Chad was sexually abusing H.L.H. More 

specifically, the allegations were that there was domestic violence between Chad and 

Mia, that Chad was very controlling, and that Mia was terrified of Chad. There were also 

allegations that Chad was giving H.L.H. illegal substances and using illegal substances 

with her and that Mia had walked in on Chad touching H.L.H. in an inappropriate sexual 

manner. Croy stated that she attempted to make contact with the family and began by 

speaking with A.H. at his school. Department investigator supervisor Ninfa Torres noted

that H.L.H. was not in school that day. Since returning to her parents’ home, H.L.H. had 

been enrolled in school, but there were issues with her attending regularly. Torres said 

that “it was so unstable that it was hard to tell which school and when she was attending,”

which was an additional concern of the Department. 

Croy testified that when she spoke with A.H., he first told her that he did not 

understand why she was there to talk to him because Ray had told him that they were 

done with CPS. A.H. nevertheless agreed to speak with Croy, seemed comfortable 

talking to her, and gave a full and complete interview. A.H. did not make any comments 

at that time that caused Croy concerns for his or H.L.H.’s safety. In fact, A.H. did not 

make any negative statements to Croy about the way that he was being treated in his

home. He denied any physical violence in the home and denied seeing H.L.H. drinking 

alcohol or using drugs. He did not make an outcry of sexual abuse of either himself or 

H.L.H., and he did not ask Croy for help. A.H., however, had told school officials that 

his parents would engage in fistfights, and the Department got statements from those

school officials. Croy said that this was concerning to the Department because when 
In re H.L.H. Page 4

children witness domestic violence, it affects their brain development and functioning. 

Children can also be injured if they attempt to get in the middle of the situation to stop 

the family violence.

When Chad was subsequently cross-examined about whether he had any idea 

why A.H. would tell school officials that there was domestic violence between him and 

Mia, Chad stated that he did not think that A.H. had said that. When the children’s 

attorney ad litem further asked Chad if it would surprise him to know that A.H. had also 

disclosed to her that there had been domestic violence between Chad and Mia, Chad 

responded, “Yes, that would surprise me.” Mia’s attorney later questioned Chad if A.H. 

had been present on an occasion when Mia had been suffering a seizure that required

Chad to slap her to revive her. Chad said that A.H. had been there “from a distance” and 

that A.H. had been about nine years old at the time. But Chad then clarified that he had

not slapped Mia on that occasion. He explained that he had been standing over her, 

trying to keep her head from flopping back and forth, and trying to place a wallet in her 

mouth “to keep her from swallowing her tongue.” 

When Mia was cross-examined about how she would explain A.H.’s comments to 

school officials that there was domestic violence in the home, Mia stated that she cannot 

explain it. Mia testified that there was no domestic violence in the home and that Chad 

had never struck her in anger. H.L.H. and Ray also denied seeing any violence between 

Chad and Mia, both stating that they saw nothing other than some verbal arguing and 

yelling. Ray further testified that he never saw anything that he believed to be 

inappropriate between Chad and H.L.H. and that if he had seen something, he would 
In re H.L.H. Page 5

have stopped it and taken “whatever precautions [he] needed to.”

Croy testified that after speaking with A.H. at his school, she decided to make an 

unannounced visit to Ray’s home where Chad and Mia were residing. Croy contacted 

the Johnson County Task Force for assistance, and two officers, including Andrew Riggs,

agreed to accompany her. Upon arriving at Ray’s home, the officers asked Croy to stay 

in the car while they approached the residence. Ray testified that the officers came onto 

the porch, knocked on the door, and asked for Chad. Ray stated that Croy was standing 

by the car while the officers spoke with Chad and that Croy then asked Mia to come out 

to the vehicle, which Mia did. Croy testified that Mia seemed disoriented when she 

reached the vehicle and had scratches on her forehead and bruises on her arms. Croy 

explained to Mia that the Department had received a new referral and asked Mia how 

she had received the injuries to her body. Mia explained that her injuries were the result 

of having a seizure and falling, and she denied that there was any domestic violence or 

sexual abuse happening in the home. 

Officer Riggs testified that at some point, H.L.H. had walked out onto the front 

porch. Officer Riggs acknowledged that nothing about H.L.H.’s presence or physical 

appearance caused him to act as a peace officer. Ray stated that Croy tried to get H.L.H. 

to come out to the car but that H.L.H. would not go. Croy agreed that she wanted to 

speak with H.L.H. that day but stated that Mia denied permission when she asked. Ray 

said that Croy grabbed Mia by the arm while Mia was talking to her. Ray heard Mia 

yelling for Croy to let her go, but Croy continued to pull Mia by the arm. According to 

Ray, Mia finally pulled herself away from Croy and returned to the porch. Croy, on the 
In re H.L.H. Page 6

other hand, said nothing about grabbing or pulling Mia’s arm. Croy stated that after Mia 

denied her permission to speak with H.L.H., she told Mia that she had spoken with A.H. 

at his school. Mia “was not happy about that.” Mia told Croy that they were not going 

to cooperate with the Department and that Croy needed to leave the property. Ray stated

that he also told the officers and Croy to get off the property. Croy and the officers left 

the property as requested, and Officer Riggs agreed at trial that no crime was committed 

in his presence that day. 

Croy testified that, as part of her investigation of the same referral, she called 

Chad’s parole officer because she knew that Chad was a parolee and was being drug 

tested. Chad’s parole officer told Croy that he had concerns that Chad was using drugs. 

Torres stated that she had also been extremely concerned for the children’s safety when 

this referral had been received because the Department had received information from 

an “individual who has activity in the drug activity in Johnson County” that both Chad 

and Mia were using methamphetamine in the presence of the children. The Department 

therefore ultimately concluded that although it was unable to determine the physical and 

sexual abuse allegations, there was reason to believe that Chad and Mia were neglectfully 

supervising H.L.H. and A.H.

Croy testified that after speaking with Torres, she drafted an affidavit so that the 

Department could obtain an order to aid them in the investigation. Torres stated that the 

decision was made to obtain the order because Chad and Mia were being “completely 

uncooperative” and denying access to the children. The decision was then also made to 

take possession of the children, but before the Department could proceed, it was 
In re H.L.H. Page 7

informed that the police had possession of one of the children. Croy testified that, on 

March 30, 2015, she received a call from the Johnson County Task Force that officers were 

taking Mia and H.L.H. to the police station because a syringe of methamphetamine had 

been found in Mia’s vehicle after Mia and H.L.H. had been stopped in the vehicle. 

Officer Riggs testified that he and other officers had set up surveillance on a 

“known methamphetamine house and Aryan Brother[hood] hangout” in an attempt to 

locate an Aryan Brotherhood member who was wanted for multiple felony warrants.

3

On March 30, 2015, the officers observed Mia’s van at the location. The officers then saw 

Mia and a man resembling the fugitive get into the van and leave the location. Officers 

in a marked patrol car attempted to pull over the van for a traffic stop. Mia, the driver, 

tried to stop the vehicle appropriately, but the man opened the passenger door and 

attempted to flee. It is Officer Riggs’s understanding that the patrol car slid into the door 

of the van to try to prevent the man from fleeing, and the man was immediately 

apprehended. It was determined that the man was not the fugitive, but he was a known 

drug user and gang member. After the van was stopped, H.L.H. was also discovered in 

the backseat of the vehicle. Officer Riggs acknowledged that nothing about H.L.H.’s 

physical appearance that day caused him alarm but stated that a small amount of 

methamphetamine in a syringe was located under the passenger seat. 

Croy testified that she went to the police station to talk to Mia and H.L.H. Chad 

was not there. Croy first spoke with H.L.H. alone. Even though H.L.H. was upset and 

 

3 Officer Riggs defined the Aryan Brotherhood as “a criminal gang organization that was founded in the 

prison system in Texas.” 
In re H.L.H. Page 8

did not seem like she wanted to talk, Croy asked her a few questions about whether there 

was domestic violence in the home and whether Chad had inappropriately touched her. 

H.L.H. denied both.

4 H.L.H., however, did admit to Croy to recently smoking marijuana, 

using alcohol, and inhaling keyboard duster. Croy then met with Mia, whom she

described as very erratic. According to Croy, Mia was “all over the place” while they 

were talking, including screaming and using a lot of hand gestures. Mia told Croy that 

the methamphetamine in the vehicle was not hers. Mia told Croy that she had simply 

agreed to give the man a ride and that he happened to have the methamphetamine in his 

possession.

Ray testified that he had been trying to help Chad and Mia “get on their feet” and 

had let them use his van. On the day that Mia was stopped, Mia had taken H.L.H. to 

enroll her in school. Ray explained that he, Chad, and Mia had tried to home school 

H.L.H. but that they had then decided to put H.L.H. back in school “when it got tough 

enough” that they were not sure how to advise her. When Mia and H.L.H. had arrived 

at the school that day, however, the school had told Mia that, to put H.L.H. back in school, 

Mia needed to have a certain paper signed by her and Chad and notarized. Ray stated 

that when the Task Force later stopped Mia with H.L.H., they rammed the van three or 

four times, “pretty much tearing it up.” Ray said that he also “heard through different 

channels” that the syringe that was found in the van contained vitamin B-12. When asked 

 

4 Croy confirmed that she had referred the sexual abuse allegations to law enforcement but that, because 

H.L.H. did not make an outcry, a sexual abuse examination was never performed, the police investigation 

of the allegations stopped, and no charges were ever pursued regarding the allegations.
In re H.L.H. Page 9

if he would be surprised to know that an officer testified that it was a syringe of 

methamphetamine, he replied, “I would be surprised.” Ray testified that it is his 

understanding that the man in the van that day has never been charged with possession 

of a controlled substance. 

Mia, on the other hand, testified that the man was charged with possession, but

she reaffirmed that she never saw and never knew about the methamphetamine. Mia 

explained, “All I was doing was trying to get gas money from him to go pick up [Chad] 

to get our daughter back into public school because I had been home schooling her.” 

Officer Riggs acknowledged at trial that Mia was never charged with any wrongdoing 

regarding the incident, never accused of possession of the drugs, and never accused of 

even knowing that the drugs were in the van.

Croy testified that she told Mia at the police station that the Department was

nevertheless removing the children at that time. The decision had already been made by 

a supervisor and program director. Although Mia had not been calm during any of their 

conversation, Mia got more upset when she heard about the removal and began to use 

profanity and to hyperventilate. Croy agreed that it would have concerned her if Mia 

had not gotten upset that the children were going to be removed but stated that she had 

been concerned about Mia’s behavior even before Mia learned of the removal. Croy 

believed that Mia might be under the influence of drugs and requested that Mia take an 

oral drug test. Mia refused, which further concerned Croy. Mia also began saying that 

she was going to have a seizure, so the paramedics were called. Mia eventually calmed 

down and did not go with the ambulance.
In re H.L.H. Page 10

Croy testified that she then gave Mia the paperwork for the emergency removal. 

Croy affirmed at trial that she was concerned at that time that H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s wellbeing were in imminent danger because the Department had not had access to H.L.H. 

and had not seen inside the home, there had once again been allegations of sexual abuse 

and drug use, and Mia and H.L.H. had just been pulled over in a vehicle where 

methamphetamine was found. Croy further affirmed that she believes that Mia’s action 

in letting H.L.H. be around a syringe of methamphetamine allowed H.L.H. to be placed 

in an environment that endangered her physical and emotional well-being. Likewise, 

Officer Riggs stated that he has concerns about children being in a vehicle with 

methamphetamine because children might intentionally or unintentionally consume the 

drug or be contaminated by the needle. Those involved in “that illicit narcotic culture” 

also tend to associate with “other unsavory characters,” and it appeared to Officer Riggs 

that H.L.H. had been around people who were involved with methamphetamine.

Croy testified that A.H. was later picked up from school by Croy’s co-worker and 

brought to the Department’s office. When Croy told A.H. that he was being removed, he

became very aggressive and upset to such an extent that the Department contacted 

MHMR to evaluate whether he needed to be hospitalized, but MHMR eventually cleared 

A.H. The children were then placed together in a foster home in Dallas, and the 

Department once again filed a petition for termination of Chad’s parental rights to H.L.H. 

and Mia’s parental rights to H.L.H. and A.H. 

H.L.H. and A.H. were subsequently evaluated at a hospital on April 10, 2015. At 

that time, H.L.H. recounted two incidents of past sexual abuse, both of which had already 
In re H.L.H. Page 11

been reported before the first termination trial and neither of which involved Chad. 

H.L.H. also reported that she has had multiple psychiatric hospitalizations and that she 

set a psychiatric hospital on fire in November 2014. Finally, H.L.H. reported that she has 

used marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin in the past. She stated that her last use 

of any drugs was in December 2014. A.H., on the other hand, denied ever being exposed 

to any drugs.

A sample of both H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s hair was taken to be tested for drugs. Croy 

stated that she believes that a hair-strand test screens for drugs ingested between two 

weeks and three months before the date the hair sample is collected. Torres said that the 

test would not detect drug ingestion within thirty days of the sample’s collection. But 

when specifically asked again if drug ingestion within thirty days of the sample’s 

collection could show up in the test results, Torres replied, “I guess it’s possible.” 

H.L.H.’s test results came back negative, but A.H. tested positive for methamphetamine

despite his denial of being exposed to any drugs.

Croy testified that she received the drug-test results on April 15, 2015, and notified 

Torres and the county attorney’s office. A.H.’s positive drug test caused the Department 

immediate serious concerns. When Croy was asked if she believes that a ten-year-old 

child has been endangered when he tests positive for methamphetamine, she responded, 

“Yes, definitely.” Torres similarly stated that, because of the drug test, the Department 

believes that the parents knowingly placed A.H.’s physical and emotional well-being in 

danger or knowingly allowed A.H.’s physical and emotional well-being to be endangered 

and that the parents knowingly allowed their children to be placed with others who 
In re H.L.H. Page 12

endangered A.H.’s physical and emotional well-being.

On April 13, 2015, a full adversary hearing was held. Mia attended part of the 

hearing. Chad, however, did not attend the hearing even though he acknowledged that 

he had been served with the Department’s petition and with a notice that the adversary 

hearing would be held on April 13. After the adversary hearing, the trial court signed an 

order naming the Department as H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s temporary managing conservator. 

Croy noted that this made the Department responsible for the children’s placement and 

care. The trial court’s order named Chad as temporary possessory conservator of H.L.H. 

and Mia as temporary possessory conservator of H.L.H. and A.H. and provided that 

Chad and Mia were to have no visitation with the children until further orders of the trial 

court. 

Croy testified that, just a few days later on April 19, 2015, H.L.H. and A.H. ran 

away from their foster home. Torres stated that H.L.H. and A.H. contacted their parents, 

that the parents and children met up somewhere in Dallas, and that the parents fled with 

the children. Croy said that there were several accounts of how the runaway came about. 

The children’s foster mother reported that H.L.H. called at least three people, including 

Ray on another foster child’s cell phone, before the children ran away. It was also 

reported that H.L.H., A.H., and another foster child were outside walking the dog when 

“some man” picked up H.L.H. and A.H. in a van. Finally, there was a report that Chad 

and Mia picked up H.L.H. and A.H. near the foster home. Croy stated that she would 

have concerns if any of the foregoing accounts are true. Croy agreed that she would have 

concerns if Chad and Mia had gone and taken possession of the children from near the 
In re H.L.H. Page 13

foster home because it would be in direct violation of the trial court’s order. Croy 

affirmed that she had never authorized Chad or Mia to take possession of the children 

after they were removed.

Torres testified that after the children ran away, she went to Ray’s home and to 

different police departments while searching for them. Croy stated that she drafted an 

affidavit, requesting that the court issue a writ of attachment for both children. A writ of 

attachment for both children was signed on April 20, 2015, ordering any sheriff or 

constable to deliver the children safely into the Department’s possession. Torres said that 

she then received a call early in the morning on April 22, 2015, that the children had been 

found. Croy stated that the Burleson Police Department found H.L.H. and A.H. with 

Chad and Mia at a house that Croy believes belongs to Chad’s and Mia’s friend.

Chad explained at trial that, on April 19, 2015, he was staying at his friend 

Amanda’s house while Mia was staying at another friend’s house down the street from 

there. Chad stated that he was not with Mia at that time because he and Mia disagreed 

about “the situation.” He and Mia were also trying to stay out of Ray’s home because it 

was their understanding that the Department was going to conduct a home study on 

Ray’s home. At about 6 or 7 p.m. that evening, Chad received a call at Amanda’s house 

from H.L.H. Chad does not know how H.L.H. got Amanda’s phone number, but he 

acknowledged that Ray knew where he was staying and that Ray could have given 

H.L.H. the number. Chad asked H.L.H. from what phone she was calling, and H.L.H. 

replied that the phone belonged to one of the other children in the foster home.

Chad testified that H.L.H. told him that she and A.H. had run away and that they 
In re H.L.H. Page 14

had a friend in Abilene who was willing to let them go and stay there. Chad told H.L.H. 

that that was “absurd” and that she should not go to Abilene. H.L.H. then told Chad that 

their foster parents lived in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas, that the foster parents had been 

fighting and talking about splitting up, and that they were also discussing splitting up 

the children in the foster home. H.L.H. further told Chad that there was drug use in the 

foster home, that she and A.H. had used drugs in the home, and “something about 

Mexican sex trading.” Chad asked H.L.H. if she had made any reports to anyone. H.L.H. 

told him that she had not; H.L.H. told him that they had just run away and were at a 

school playground close to the foster home. Chad told H.L.H. that he would come and 

get them. H.L.H. gave Chad an address for what she claimed was a friend’s house close 

to the foster home. Chad told H.L.H. to give back the phone that she was using, to then 

go to the friend’s house with A.H., and to wait for him there.

Chad testified that when he made the decision to go get the children, his intention 

had not been to commit a crime. He explained that after the first termination trial, he had 

made a promise to H.L.H. that he would be there “no matter what” if she ever called and 

needed him. And after H.L.H. called, he knew that H.L.H. and A.H. had run away from 

“a bad situation” and that they were on the streets in “a very bad neighborhood.” He 

was therefore simply “saving [his] daughter from being on the streets.” Chad further 

said that he did not know about the trial court’s order precluding visitation with the 

children. However, he acknowledged that he knew that the Department had taken the 

children, and he admitted that he never asked the trial court for consent to take 

possession of the children. Chad eventually conceded that if the trial court had entered 
In re H.L.H. Page 15

an order stating that he was not allowed visitation with the children, then his picking up 

H.L.H. and A.H. was in direct violation of the order.

Chad testified that he was unable to leave for Dallas until about 9 p.m. After he 

had decided to go get the children, he asked Amanda if he could use her vehicle. She 

agreed as long as she could ride along. Chad then drove with Amanda to see another 

friend and to get some gas money before looking up the address that H.L.H. had given 

him and leaving for Dallas. Chad said that he then arrived in Dallas around 10:45 or 11:45 

p.m. When he arrived at the address that H.L.H. had given him, Chad did not see the 

children, but when he started to drive away, H.L.H. and A.H. came running from the 

back of the house. H.L.H. and A.H. jumped into the vehicle, and H.L.H. immediately 

stated that A.H. had been molested. Chad told H.L.H. that they could talk about it later 

and drove them all back to Amanda’s house. 

Chad was cross-examined about why he did not call the police, who could have 

arrived immediately, instead of letting H.L.H. and A.H. roam the streets unsupervised in 

what he believed was a dangerous place. Chad said that he does not have any confidence 

in the police or the Department. Chad stated that if the police had found the children, 

they would have returned them to the Department’s care. Instead, Chad wanted to get 

the children himself, take them to the police, and let the children tell the police about 

what had happened in the foster home. Chad hoped that the police would investigate, 

discover that the children had been in danger, and not return them to the same people. 

Chad nevertheless acknowledged that the children were alone on the streets of Dallas for 

a long time and that bad things could have happened.
In re H.L.H. Page 16

Chad also acknowledged that he did not take H.L.H. to an emergency care 

provider after he picked her up even though she had told him that she had used drugs in 

the foster home. Chad explained that H.L.H. did not seem like she was under the 

influence of drugs or in need of healthcare at the time. Chad further stated that his 

intention had been to take the children to the police department the next day and to tell 

the police about the allegations that H.L.H. had made. Chad assumed that the police 

would take H.L.H. to a medical facility and conduct a drug test then.

Chad testified that he later talked “quite extensively” with H.L.H. about her drug 

use in the foster home and that H.L.H. told him that she had used methamphetamine in 

the foster home. Chad and H.L.H. also later talked about A.H. being sexually abused in 

the foster home. Chad stated that he did not talk to A.H. directly about it because A.H. 

seemed very upset and hesitant to speak about it. According to Chad, Mia talked to A.H. 

about it at some point, and Mia then told Chad that A.H. was “very distraught about it.” 

Then again, Chad acknowledged at trial that H.L.H. may have made up the allegations 

regarding A.H. as a way to manipulate the situation. Chad also stated that he understood 

that A.H. later “withdrew” the allegations. 

Chad testified that when they finally arrived at Amanda’s house, the children 

wanted to see Mia. Chad was able to reach Mia around 6 or 7 a.m. on April 20, 2015, and 

told her that he needed to speak with her. Chad said that he did not tell her anything 

about the children at that time. Mia did not want to speak with Chad, but he eventually 

convinced her to let him come over. Chad went and picked up Mia while the children 

stayed at Amanda’s house. According to Chad, Mia first encountered the children when 
In re H.L.H. Page 17

she went into Amanda’s house, and the children were there to see her. When questioned 

about whether Mia ever subsequently attempted to call anyone to report that she had 

possession of H.L.H. and A.H., Chad explained that Mia did not have a phone. Chad 

also said that he sets the rules in his household and that he would not have let Mia call 

anyone.

When Mia was questioned at trial about how she came to pick up H.L.H. and A.H. 

from their foster home, she replied that H.L.H. had called. Mia stated that the children 

were in a “bad, bad area” for them to be out by themselves. H.L.H. and A.H. had said 

that A.H. had been hurt, that there was sex trafficking and drug use in the foster home, 

and that they were scared, missed their parents, and wanted to come home. Mia stated 

that she did what any parent who loved her children would have done and picked them 

up. She did not call the police. She said that she called their caseworker but received no 

return phone call. When asked if she called the CPS hotline, Mia replied, “No, but I did 

repeatedly call CPS. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.”

Chad testified that after the children saw Mia, he then explained to the children

his plan to take them to the police department and for them to tell the police what had 

happened in the foster home. But the children were upset and scared. The children did 

not want to go to the police because they knew that they would end up back in foster 

care. Chad then called Ray. Ray immediately told him that the Department, the Johnson 

County Task Force, and detectives had been to his house. Ray told Chad that an AMBER 

Alert had been issued for the children and that the authorities believed that Chad had 

taken the children and had violated his parole. Ray told Chad that if he had the children, 
In re H.L.H. Page 18

then he needed to contact the police. Chad told Ray that he did not have the children and 

hung up on him. The children then slept for several hours while Chad tried to gather his 

thoughts, figure out what to do, and make arrangements. Chad eventually decided not 

to take the children to the police. Chad explained that although he felt like he was doing 

the right thing, he now knew that he was being considered a criminal. He was therefore 

not going to go to the police without getting the children to “a safe place.” Otherwise, 

the Department would immediately put the children “right back in a dangerous spot.” 

Chad testified that later in the afternoon on April 20, he, Mia, H.L.H., and A.H. 

went to another friend’s house and spent the night there. They also spent the day and 

night of April 21, 2015, there. The children were able to bathe. Mia stayed with the 

children while Chad and the friend went to McDonald’s and picked up lunch for 

everyone. They all then had pizza for dinner. Chad stated that, on April 22, 2015, he then 

tried to figure out what he needed to do regarding law enforcement because he was not 

trying to commit a crime and because he knew that he was not going to be able to continue 

what he was doing long term. Chad noted that none of the people with whom they had 

stayed had any real knowledge about what was happening. 

Chad testified that, on April 22, a man whose name he does not remember gave 

them a ride to the man’s home. The man’s mother was at the home, and Chad briefly 

spoke to her and thanked both her and her son for giving them a ride. Chad does not 

know if the woman recognized the children, but he believes that his physical appearance 

intimidated her. The woman left the house, saying “that she was going to work or 

something,” but she went to a neighbor’s house and called the police. At about 6:30 a.m. 
In re H.L.H. Page 19

on April 22, the Burleson Police Department recovered the children and arrested Chad.

Torres testified that law enforcement transported H.L.H. and A.H. to the 

Department’s office at that time and that she, Croy, and Amy Hughes, the family’s 

conservatorship worker from April 2015 to December 2015, met them there. Hughes 

observed that both children appeared to be in poor condition. A.H. was dirty, he seemed 

to be very hungry, and his clothes were “very, very small for his size.” Torres, Croy, and 

Hughes stated that A.H. did not appear to be under the influence of anything, but Torres 

said that A.H. was very upset and withdrawn and did not want to talk much; he felt like 

he could live on his own on the streets. Croy testified that she also had many concerns 

about H.L.H.’s condition. H.L.H. looked tired, her clothes were disheveled, and it 

appeared as though she had not bathed in a couple of days. Torres, Croy, and Hughes 

further said that H.L.H. seemed to be under the influence of something. Torres and Croy 

noted that H.L.H.’s eyes were extremely dilated and that she was biting her lip so hard 

that it was bleeding excessively. Torres commented that H.L.H. was exhibiting rapid 

mood swings and not making any sense. H.L.H. was “very hard to manage,” and it took 

Torres a long time to calm her down so that she would not run or hurt herself.

Croy testified that she attempted to interview the children. H.L.H. was able to 

communicate, but she was regressing and acting like she was a little child. H.L.H. talked 

specifically about needing a car seat and a pacifier, and they eventually gave H.L.H. a 

pacifier so that she would stop biting her lip. The children were not very specific about 

where they had been, stating only “that they had gone all over.” The children also talked 

about sleeping in a car a couple of times and eating only twice—McDonald’s and pizza. 
In re H.L.H. Page 20

Croy acknowledged that she had concerns at that time that the children had once again 

been endangered by Chad’s and Mia’s actions.

Torres testified that they decided to take the children to the hospital to be 

examined. H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s medical records indicate that they were seen at the 

hospital at about 11:30 a.m. on April 22. A.H.’s physical exam revealed that he was “well 

developed, well nourished, well hydrated, non-toxic, [in] no apparent distress, vigorous, 

[and] smiling” at that time. He was given a urine drug screen that was negative. 

Similarly, H.L.H.’s physical exam indicated that she was “well developed, well 

nourished, well hydrated, non-toxic, [and in] no apparent distress.” Her medical records 

further reveal that she showed “[n]o altered mental status, slurred speech, or signs of 

intoxication,” and Torres agreed that H.L.H. was acting “less bizarre” by that time. 

H.L.H.’s urine drug screen, however, was positive for amphetamines and marijuana, and 

H.L.H.’s diagnosis was that she had used methamphetamine and marijuana. Torres and 

Croy testified that a urine drug screen detects amphetamine/methamphetamine use 

within seventy-two hours of the test. Torres said that she therefore believes that the drugtest results show that Chad’s and Mia’s actions or inaction knowingly or intentionally 

placed the children in an unsafe environment that endangered their physical and 

emotional well-being. Croy similarly stated that, based on the drug-test results, the 

Department definitely believes that H.L.H.’s physical and emotional well-being had been 

endangered. 

Chad and Mia were thereafter each charged with two counts of interference with 

child custody, one count for each child. In light of A.H.’s positive hair-strand drug test
In re H.L.H. Page 21

before the children ran away, Chad and Mia were also each charged with endangering a 

child. Both Chad and Mia were confined in jail at the time of the second termination trial,

awaiting trial on these criminal charges. Chad testified that he had been jailed since his 

arrest on April 22; Mia stated that she had been detained since June 3, 2015.

During the second termination trial, Chad refuted the factual allegations 

underlying the endangering-a-child charge. Chad specifically denied having anything to 

do with A.H. testing positive for methamphetamine on the hair-strand drug test. Mia 

likewise stated, “I honestly have no idea how that even happened,” when asked how she 

would explain A.H. testing positive for methamphetamine. When the children’s attorney 

ad litem further asked Chad and Mia if it would surprise them to know that A.H. told 

her that he believes that he tested positive because Chad, Mia, and H.L.H. had used drugs 

around him, both Chad and Mia replied that it would surprise them. 

Chad admitted that he has used methamphetamine in the past but stated that the 

last time that he had used drugs was before the first termination trial and that he had 

never used drugs while he had his children. Mia stated that she had been “clean” for 

many years and that she had had only a very short relapse on March 30, 2015, when the 

Department removed the children. Chad stated that he therefore does not believe that he 

or Mia is a drug addict. Chad also agreed that he believes that a child’s use of an illegal 

substance is conduct that places the child in an unsafe or dangerous environment and 

that a child’s use of a drug like methamphetamine poses imminent danger to him or her

of death, bodily injury, and physical or mental impairment. Chad pointed out that A.H. 

had instead been in the possession of the Department and foster care before testing
In re H.L.H. Page 22

positive for methamphetamine.

Chad also denied having anything to do with H.L.H. testing positive for drugs. 

He stated that he neither had drugs, used drugs, nor provided methamphetamine to 

H.L.H. during the time that the children were with him after running away. He further 

denied taking H.L.H. anywhere where she would have been around someone whom he 

knew used drugs. And although Chad did not check H.L.H. to see if she possessed drugs 

when he picked her up, he does not believe that H.L.H. used drugs while in his care. As 

for Mia, Croy testified that she attempted to have her take a hair-strand drug test after 

the children had been recovered but that Mia never completed it. Mia, like Chad, 

nevertheless stated that she was unaware of H.L.H. doing drugs during the three-day 

period when the children had run away. When Mia was asked how she would explain 

H.L.H. testing positive for methamphetamine, Mia replied, “I don’t know that either as 

to why she would fail.” 

Chad claimed that H.L.H.’s positive drug test resulted from the children using

methamphetamine in foster care. Chad supported this explanation by stating that the 

urine drug screen given to H.L.H. did not cover just the time that H.L.H. had been with 

him but that it also covered at least some of the time that H.L.H. had been in foster care. 

Chad said that he has “taken a lot of drug tests” and that his understanding is that a urine 

drug screen will detect methamphetamine use for at least the previous seven to ten days, 

depending on the amount of methamphetamine ingested. Chad explained that the more 

a person uses, the longer it will stay in his or her system. Chad further explained that 

marijuana is different than methamphetamine and can be detected in a urine drug screen 
In re H.L.H. Page 23

for up to thirty days. 

Chad nevertheless acknowledged, when shown the photograph that was taken of 

H.L.H. at the Department’s office after she had been recovered, that H.L.H. looked tired,

exhausted, and in need of care. Chad stated that it is “a very disturbing picture” of H.L.H. 

Still, Chad insisted that H.L.H. had not looked or acted like that when she had been with 

him. He stated that H.L.H. had been very outspoken and vibrant. She had bathed and 

slept, and she was wearing clean clothes. Chad did not know why H.L.H. had regressed

but rationalized that the photograph had been taken after H.L.H. had been in the 

Department’s care for hours. Chad explained that H.L.H. has never enjoyed the 

Department; she has fought the Department and has told its employees lies. Chad 

claimed that the Department therefore caused H.L.H.’s appearance in the photograph 

because H.L.H. “had been up all morning probably having to talk to y’all for hours and 

upset, taken away from her parents.” 

Hughes testified that after H.L.H. had been returned to the Department’s care on 

April 22, the Department placed H.L.H. in a shelter in downtown Fort Worth. H.L.H. 

then ran away again on April 28, 2015. Mia stated that H.L.H. called her after she had 

run away and that Mia began driving around, trying to find H.L.H. This time, however, 

Mia immediately called the police and reported H.L.H. as a runaway. Mia also informed 

the police that she had an ongoing CPS case and asked the police if she could pick up 

H.L.H. if she found her and if H.L.H. could stay with her until she was able to reach their 

caseworker. According to Mia, the police told her that she could pick up H.L.H. but that 

she needed to contact the Department immediately and let the caseworkers know that 
In re H.L.H. Page 24

she had possession of H.L.H. Mia eventually found H.L.H., picked her up, and returned 

her to the Department’s office. Hughes confirmed that Mia returned H.L.H. to the 

Department on April 30, 2015, which Hughes acknowledged is what she would have 

wanted Mia to do. Mia told Hughes that H.L.H. had been in her possession for only a 

few hours, and Hughes noted that H.L.H. did not appear to be under the influence of 

anything at the time. H.L.H. was very emotional and did not want to leave Mia, but Mia 

eventually convinced H.L.H. that it was the right thing for H.L.H. to stay in the 

Department’s care. 

Hughes testified that she then prepared a service plan for the family, which was 

admitted into evidence. The service plan was filed with the district clerk and approved 

by the trial court in May 2015. Additionally, Hughes communicated directly with Chad 

and Mia about the service plan and believes that her communication with them was 

sufficient to let them know what was required of them. Hughes stated that, during her 

time as the family’s conservatorship worker, however, neither Chad nor Mia participated

in or completed any services through the Department and that she is unaware of Chad 

or Mia completing any services available to them in jail. Hughes acknowledged that the 

ability to complete services in jail is limited but stated that the jail generally offers 

opportunities to complete some services. 

Mia responded that she did complete some of the service-plan requirements. Mia 

stated that, before she was confined in jail, she went to STAR Council, which Hughes 

described as a drug treatment facility available in Johnson County, and passed a urine 

drug screen. According to Mia, STAR Council then told her that she did not qualify for 
In re H.L.H. Page 25

their services at that time. Mia stated that she also completed the parenting class, the 

only service available to her in jail, in late September 2015. She was also taking a “Living 

Recovery Class,” a Bible study based on twelve steps, which is optional to the 

Department. As for Chad, he testified that a service plan requiring him to complete 

certain services had been prepared and that he did not complete it. Chad explained that 

he had been unable to perform any services because he has been in jail where most of the 

required services are unavailable. 

Hughes testified that while Chad and Mia were confined in jail, H.L.H. ran away 

from her placement on two more occasions. During questioning by Mia’s attorney, Croy 

acknowledged that H.L.H. was not happy about being in foster care and that she wanted 

to run away. It was Croy’s understanding, however, that H.L.H. and A.H. made 

statements that they were told to run away if the Department took possession of them, 

and it concerns Croy that parents would tell children to run away. Mia responded that 

she did not instruct her children to run from the Department, to disrupt their placements,

or to be rude or disrespectful to Department personnel.

Hughes testified that because of the constant risk of H.L.H. running away, 

obtaining drugs, and making poor choices at the time of the second termination trial, 

H.L.H. could not be placed in a regular foster home. Torres stated that then fourteenyear-old H.L.H. was therefore living in a residential treatment center at the time of the 

second termination trial. Hughes explained that a residential treatment center is 

designed to rehabilitate a child through intensive therapy, counseling, and, in some cases, 

medication management so that the child can return to a less restrictive environment, like 
In re H.L.H. Page 26

a low-level residential treatment center or a foster home. 

Torres, Hughes, Amy Conner, the family’s conservatorship worker at the time of 

the second termination trial, and Patricia McCall, the CASA volunteer and guardian ad 

litem for the children, all testified that H.L.H. was doing well in the residential treatment 

center. Conner stated that when H.L.H. arrived at the residential treatment center, she 

required the highest level of care but that her level of care had been lowered one level. 

Additionally, H.L.H. was no longer on probation and no longer required medication, and 

she had been doing well in school and in therapy. Hughes stated that she believed that 

the residential treatment center was the appropriate type of facility for H.L.H. at the time

of the second termination trial but that foster care would be an option in the future if 

H.L.H. demonstrates the ability to make good choices. 

McCall testified that then eleven-year-old A.H. was also doing “pretty well” and 

living in a nice foster home where he was one of several foster children. His foster mother 

was very structured, and A.H. particularly liked his foster father. Conner stated that A.H. 

was also doing well in school and that his behaviors continued to improve but that he 

did still have some behavioral issues that required ongoing therapy.

A.H.’s counselor Steven Shepherd testified that he had been seeing A.H. weekly 

since September 2015. He uses a touch-and-praise process that he has developed called 

“trauma recovery therapy.” Shepherd described it as a simple process that parents 

already do with their children. When a child exhibits a positive behavior, the parent 

touches the child and praises him or her, such as patting the child on the shoulder and 

saying “good job.” The child then increases the positive behaviors because he or she 
In re H.L.H. Page 27

wants the positive attention. 

Shepherd testified that he was seeing the benefits of therapy with A.H. but that he 

had also seen regressions in his behavior. According to Shepherd, A.H. tended to 

function like a seven- or eight-year-old in both his maturity and academic functioning. 

A.H. was also self-harming and continuing to struggle with acting out in public locations. 

A.H.’s foster mother told Shepherd that A.H. also had a long history of lying and making 

allegations of various abuses. A.H. confirmed to Shepherd that he had said things about 

the foster family or caseworkers that were not true. Shepherd explained that A.H. had

made these false allegations for attention or to try to manipulate changes in his 

environment.

Shepherd testified that, based on his professional experience, he believes that A.H. 

has had some type of emotional trauma that has caused his behavioral issues. The 

psychological profile that Shepherd received also indicates that A.H. meets the standard 

for a stress-related, trauma-related disorder. Shepherd acknowledged that A.H. had 

experienced some recent traumatic situations, like being placed in foster care and running 

away from his foster home with H.L.H., but stated that, based on his experience, many 

of A.H.’s behaviors, emotional reactions, and perception distortions were consistent with 

children who have had trauma when they were younger, not older. 

Shepherd noted that A.H. had discussed his parents during their sessions. A.H. 

told Shepherd that there was domestic violence, drug use, and a lot of chaos in the home, 

which made him feel unloved and insecure. Shepherd stated that a domestic-violence 

event is a frightening experience for a child and causes a child to experience a great deal 
In re H.L.H. Page 28

of distress, even if the violence is not aimed at the child. McCall further commented that 

A.H. loves Mia but is afraid of Chad. And when asked if A.H. ever reported that he had 

been harmed at home, McCall said, “He has stated something to that effect, not anything 

that is exact, but something to that effect, yes.” 

Shepherd testified that the environment A.H. came from was absolutely contrary 

to his best interest. Shepherd acknowledged that he had never met Chad or Mia and that 

he had not investigated A.H.’s statements but opined that, based on A.H.’s depiction of 

his parents and the home that he came from, it was not an appropriate place. Shepherd 

believes that the environment that A.H. came from endangered A.H.’s physical and 

emotional well-being and led A.H. to the perception that he is not worth being loved. 

Shepherd would have concerns about A.H.’s emotional well-being if A.H. were allowed 

to return to his parents’ care. Shepherd opined that it is likely that A.H.’s emotional needs 

would not be met if he is returned to Chad and Mia and that his condition would worsen. 

Shepherd testified that, on the other hand, A.H. was generally “doing well” and 

progressing in his foster home. The foster family had a structured environment, the foster 

mother was very proactive with the children, and the home was always suitable. A.H.’s 

behavior presents difficulties, but the foster family was willing to work through those 

issues with A.H.; therefore, A.H. was in a stable placement. Both Shepherd and Conner

stated that they believe that A.H.’s needs were being met in his current placement. 

Shepherd acknowledged that he believes that A.H. loves his parents and misses his 

family, but both Shepherd and Hughes said that A.H. had indicated that adoption with 

a family that has good parenting skills but is young and active enough to have fun with 
In re H.L.H. Page 29

him would be a good placement for him. Shepherd and Hughes agreed. 

Shepherd further testified that A.H. did not think that it was in his best interest to 

live with or have contact with H.L.H. at the time of the second termination trial. A.H. 

loves H.L.H. and would like to have contact with her later in life, but not presently. 

H.L.H. made him want to act out because they acted out together in the past. Hughes 

also stated that A.H. told her that he was fearful of H.L.H. and blamed her for the initial 

runaway. Based on what A.H. told her, Conner accordingly testified that although the 

Department’s typical goal is to keep siblings together, she did not believe that it would 

be beneficial to H.L.H. and A.H. to stay together at that time. 

As for H.L.H., she testified that she would very much like to return home to her 

parents and believed that it was in her best interest to do so. Hughes stated that she did

not believe, however, that returning home was a good option for H.L.H. because H.L.H.’s

pattern of running away and drug use would likely continue. McCall stated that H.L.H. 

had talked to her about the past drug use and that H.L.H. was “clean” at the time of the 

second termination trial and beginning to understand that drugs are not something that 

should be in her life. McCall also said while H.L.H. was very protective of Mia, McCall 

thought that H.L.H. was afraid of Chad.

Hughes testified that the permanency plan for the children was therefore 

unrelated adoption. In her opinion, Chad’s and Mia’s actions endangered the children,

and Chad and Mia lack the willingness to work any services or to commit to make any 

changes for the betterment of their children and family. In her opinion, it was also in the 

children’s best interest that Chad’s and Mia’s parental rights be terminated and that the 
In re H.L.H. Page 30

children be allowed to move forward with their permanency goals.

Conner testified that she had spoken with Mia and had no doubt that Mia loves 

and cares about H.L.H. and A.H. Conner had not had any contact with Chad, but believes 

that he also loves and cares for the children. Conner also agreed that Chad and Mia have 

very strong family support, and Hughes acknowledged that, considering H.L.H.’s 

behaviors, the likelihood of adoption for her would be low. Conner nevertheless believed

that, given the circumstances and the case history, termination of Chad’s and Mia’s 

parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. McCall also stated that she 

believed that as much as the children love their parents, it is in their best interest “to stay 

in foster care so they can have a chance to overcome their issues and be productive young 

people.”

Mia responded that she loves her children and believes that it is in the children’s 

best interest to be with her and Chad. Mia stated that while she is confined in jail, there 

are multiple family members in both her and Chad’s family who have expressed interest 

in taking the children. Ray confirmed that Chad and Mia have a lot of family support. 

Mia said that she eventually plans to start over with the children in another state. She 

does not believe that it would be hard for her to find employment and said that there are 

resources to help mothers and children. She commented that H.L.H. never got in trouble 

with the law while in her care and that A.H.’s behaviors in foster care were not the type 

of behavior that he has had while in her care. Chad similarly testified that he loves H.L.H. 

and would like for her to be returned to him and Mia. If not with them, he would at least 

like her to be placed with his immediate family. Chad agreed with Mia that they
In re H.L.H. Page 31

ultimately plan to move out of state, and he believes that he would be able to find 

employment and provide housing for the family.

Chad’s Issue One

In his first issue, Chad contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence at 

the second termination trial of acts or omissions that occurred before the December 2014 

order denying termination of his parental rights to H.L.H. 

Section 161.004(a) of the Family Code, entitled “Termination of Parental Rights 

After Denial of Prior Petition to Terminate,” states:

The court may terminate the parent-child relationship after rendition of an 

order that previously denied termination of the parent-child relationship if:

(1) the petition under this section is filed after the date the order 

denying termination was rendered;

(2) the circumstances of the child, parent, sole managing conservator, 

possessory conservator, or other party affected by the order 

denying termination have materially and substantially changed 

since the date that the order was rendered;

(3) the parent committed an act listed under Section 161.001 before the 

date the order denying termination was rendered; and

(4) termination is in the best interest of the child.

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.004(a) (West 2014). But section 161.004 does not provide the 

exclusive grounds for terminating a parent’s parental rights to a child following entry of 

an order denying termination of the parent-child relationship after a prior termination 

proceeding. Termination can be achieved after a prior order denying termination of the 

parent-child relationship through either section 161.004 or section 161.001. In re K.G., 350 

S.W.3d 338, 352 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied); see In re K.P., 498 S.W.3d 157, 
In re H.L.H. Page 32

170 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); In re D.N., 405 S.W.3d 863, 870 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, no pet.). Using section 161.004 is nevertheless the only way 

that the trial court can terminate a parent’s parental rights to a child based on evidence 

presented in a prior termination proceeding regarding the parent-child relationship. See 

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.004(b); K.P., 498 S.W.3d at 170; D.N., 405 S.W.3d at 870; K.G., 

350 S.W.3d at 352.

The Department here sought to terminate Chad’s parental rights to H.L.H. under 

section 161.001 only. The Department did not plead section 161.004 as a ground to 

terminate either Chad’s or Mia’s parental rights. The trial court therefore erred in

admitting evidence of acts or omissions that occurred before the December 2014 order 

denying termination of Chad’s parental rights to H.L.H. See K.P., 498 S.W.3d at 170; D.N., 

405 S.W.3d at 870; K.G., 350 S.W.3d at 352. Chad, however, has not preserved his

complaint about the admission of such evidence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Furthermore, 

the error in admitting such evidence is harmless to Chad because, as discussed below, 

the evidence of only the acts or omissions occurring after the December 2014 order 

denying termination of Chad’s parental rights to H.L.H. is sufficient to support 

termination of Chad’s parental rights to H.L.H. under section 161.001. See, e.g., K.G., 350 

S.W.3d at 352. We therefore overrule Chad’s first issue.

Chad’s Issues Two, Three, Four & Five

Mia’s Issues One, Two, Three & Five

In his second, third, fourth, and fifth issues, Chad contends that the evidence is 

legally and factually insufficient to support the findings that he violated Family Code 
In re H.L.H. Page 33

subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and that termination of his parental rights to 

H.L.H. was in the child’s best interest. In her first, second, third, and fifth issues, Mia 

contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the findings that 

she violated Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), and that termination 

of her parental rights to H.L.H. and A.H. was in the children’s best interest.5

In a proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship brought under section 

161.001, the Department must establish by clear and convincing evidence two elements: 

(1) one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (b)(1) of section 161.001, 

termed a predicate violation; and (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child. 

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2017); Swate v. Swate, 72 S.W.3d 763, 

766 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. denied). The factfinder must find that both elements are 

established by clear and convincing evidence, and proof of one element does not relieve 

the petitioner of the burden of proving the other. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 370 

(Tex. 1976); Swate, 72 S.W.3d at 766. “Clear and convincing evidence” is defined as “that 

measure or degree of proof which 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.” In re G.M., 596 

S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980).

Both legal and factual sufficiency reviews in termination cases must take into 

consideration whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm 

 

5 Mia’s fifth issue actually states that she contends that the evidence is only factually insufficient to support 

the finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interest; however, Mia argues 

at least once in the substance of her argument that the evidence is also legally insufficient to support the 

finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We will therefore address 

both the legal and factual sufficiency of the best-interest finding as to Mia.
In re H.L.H. Page 34

belief or conviction about the truth of the matter on which the petitioner bears the burden 

of proof. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264-68 (Tex. 2002) (discussing legal sufficiency 

review); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002) (discussing factual sufficiency review).

In a legal sufficiency review, a court should look at all the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier 

of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was 

true. To give appropriate deference to the factfinder’s conclusions and the 

role of a court conducting a legal sufficiency review, looking at the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court 

must assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its 

finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so. A corollary to this 

requirement is that a court should disregard all evidence that a reasonable 

factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible. 

J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

In a factual sufficiency review, a court of appeals must give due consideration to 

evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing. Id.

[T]he inquiry must be “whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could 

reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State’s 

allegations.” A court of appeals should consider whether disputed 

evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved that 

disputed evidence in favor of its finding. If, in light of the entire record, the 

disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in 

favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably 

have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually 

insufficient.

Id. (footnotes and citations omitted); see C.H., 89 S.W.2d at 25.

Statutory Predicate Grounds

In his second and third issues and in her first and second issues, Chad and Mia, 

respectively, contend that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish 

that he and she, respectively, violated Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). 
In re H.L.H. Page 35

Termination under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(D) requires clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent has “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain 

in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of 

the child.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D). Termination under subsection 

161.001(b)(1)(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that the parent has “engaged in 

conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which 

endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E).

To endanger means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopardize. Tex. Dep’t of Human 

Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); see also In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. 

1996). The specific danger to a child’s physical or emotional well-being need not be 

established as an independent proposition, but it may be inferred from parental 

misconduct. See Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533.

When termination of parental rights is based on section D, the 

endangerment analysis focuses on the evidence of the child’s physical 

environment, although the environment produced by the conduct of the 

parents bears on the determination of whether the child’s surroundings 

threaten his well-being. In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Section D permits termination if the 

petitioner proves parental conduct caused a child to be placed or remain in 

an endangering environment. In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1997, pet. denied).

It is not necessary that the parent’s conduct be directed towards the 

child or that the child actually be injured; rather, a child is endangered 

when the environment creates a potential for danger which the parent is 

aware of but disregards. In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d at 477. Conduct that 

demonstrates awareness of an endangering environment is sufficient to 

show endangerment. Id. (citing In re Tidwell, 35 S.W.3d 115, 119-20 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (“[I]t is not necessary for [the mother] to 

have had certain knowledge that one of the [sexual molestation] offenses 

actually occurred; it is sufficient that she was aware of the potential for 
In re H.L.H. Page 36

danger to the children and disregarded that risk by ... leaving the children 

in that environment.”)). In considering whether to terminate parental 

rights, the court may look at parental conduct both before and after the birth 

of the child. Avery v. State, 963 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Section D permits termination based upon only a 

single act or omission. In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d at 367.

Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). 

Under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(E), the relevant inquiry is whether evidence exists 

that the endangerment of the child’s well-being was the direct result of the parent’s 

conduct, including acts, omissions, or failures to act. In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d 215, 222 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory

Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 83-84 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ).

Additionally, termination under subsection (E) must be based on more than 

a single act or omission; the statute requires a voluntary, deliberate, and 

conscious course of conduct by the parent. [In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)]; see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 

161.001[(b)](1)(E). It is not necessary, however, that the parent’s conduct be 

directed at the child or that the child actually suffer injury. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 

at 533; J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125. The specific danger to the child’s wellbeing may be inferred from parental misconduct standing alone. Boyd, 727 

S.W.2d at 533; In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 738 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, 

pet. denied).

In re T.T.F., 331 S.W.3d 461, 483 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.).

Chad first argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish 

that he violated subsection 161.001(b)(1)(D) because the Department focused on his and 

Mia’s conduct and not the acceptability of the children’s living conditions. Mia similarly 

notes in her brief that there were no allegations that her home was unsanitary or 

unkempt. However, as stated above, even though the focus of subsection 

161.001(b)(1)(D) is on the child’s environment, courts have held that parental conduct 
In re H.L.H. Page 37

itself may produce an endangering environment. See J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 125 (“Conduct 

of a parent in the home can create an environment that endangers the physical and 

emotional well-being of a child.”); see also In re D.R.J., No. 07-08-0410-CV, 2009 WL 

1953402, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jul. 8, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.; “Although the 

focus of subsection (D) is on the child’s living environment and not on the parent’s 

conduct, parental conduct may produce an endangering ‘environment.’”).

Chad next argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish

that he violated subsection 161.001(b)(1)(E) because the removal of H.L.H. was based on 

the single incident of Mia being pulled over for a traffic stop and a syringe of 

methamphetamine being found in the vehicle. Chad notes that a single act or omission 

will not support the termination of parental rights under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(E) and 

points out that there is no evidence that he was the cause of H.L.H. being in Mia’s vehicle 

that day. We, however, believe that the evidence supports that both Chad and Mia have 

engaged in a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that has endangered 

the physical and emotional well-being of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 

161.001(b)(1)(E). And the evidence supports that both Chad’s and Mia’s conduct has 

produced an endangering environment that has endangered the physical and emotional 

well-being of the children. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D).

The evidence shows that, although Chad, Mia, and H.L.H. denied that there was 

domestic violence in the home, A.H. reported to school officials and to his counselor 

Shepherd that there was domestic violence in the home. Croy further testified that when 

she visited Ray’s home unannounced, she encountered a disoriented Mia who had 
In re H.L.H. Page 38

scratches on her forehead and bruises on her arms. 

Domestic violence, want of self-control, and propensity for violence may be 

considered as evidence of endangerment. See In re B.J.B., 546 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. Civ. 

App.—Texarkana 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Sylvia M. v. Dallas County Child Welfare 

Unit, 771 S.W.2d 198, 201-04 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ) (considering “volatile and 

chaotic” marriage, altercation during pregnancy, and mother’s repeated reconciliation 

with abusive spouse). Abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a 

child’s home may produce an environment that endangers the physical or emotional 

well-being of a child. K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d at 222; see Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare 

Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (violent or 

abusive conduct by someone within household is environment that endangers children).

Mia argues that A.H.’s alleged statements about domestic violence are not credible 

because the school officials themselves did not testify, because Shepherd uses

“questionable methods of therapy,” and because Shepherd also stated that A.H. lies to 

manipulate his environment. Mia further points out that she denied that her injuries 

were the result of domestic violence when Croy visited Ray’s home unannounced. We, 

however, must defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and reasonable resolution of 

factual disputes. See In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). From the evidence, the 

jury could have reasonably believed that there was domestic violence in the children’s 

home. 

The evidence also reveals that when Mia was pulled over for the traffic stop, it was 

discovered that a man who is a known drug user and gang member was in the vehicle 
In re H.L.H. Page 39

with her and H.L.H. Although Mia denied knowing of its presence, a syringe of 

methamphetamine was also located under the passenger seat of the vehicle. When Croy 

later met with Mia at the police station, she believed that Mia might be under the 

influence of drugs and therefore requested that Mia take an oral drug test, but Mia 

refused. After the children were removed, A.H. then tested positive for 

methamphetamine, and, according to Shepherd, A.H. told him that there was drug use 

in the home. 

A parent’s illegal drug use and drug-related criminal activity may support a 

finding that the child’s surroundings endanger his physical or emotional well-being. In 

re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). And “[b]ecause 

it exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or imprisoned, 

illegal drug use may support termination under section 161.001[(b)](1)(E).” Walker v. Tex. 

Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617-18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2009, pet. denied) (citing Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 

189, 195-96 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (terminating parental rights 

despite there being no direct evidence of parent’s continued drug use actually injuring 

child)). A factfinder may reasonably infer from a parent’s refusal to take a drug test that 

the parent was using drugs. In re C.R., 263 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no 

pet.). A parent’s continued drug use demonstrates an inability to provide for the child’s 

emotional and physical needs and to provide a stable environment for the child. In re 

F.A.R., No. 11-04-00014-CV, 2005 WL 181719, at *4 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 13, 2005, no 

pet.) (mem. op.).
In re H.L.H. Page 40

Mia argues that there is no testimony other than speculation as to where A.H. may 

have been exposed to drugs. Mia claims that the testimony was disputed regarding the 

”look back period” for a hair-strand drug test and that it is undisputed that she had no 

unsupervised contact with A.H. for the approximately ten days before the drug test was 

taken. The evidence, however, indicates that it is irrelevant who had possession of A.H. 

during the approximately ten days before the drug test was taken. The only testimony 

regarding the “look back period” for a hair-strand drug test was from Croy and Torres, 

who testified that the drug test screens for drugs ingested as recent as two weeks to thirty 

days before the hair sample is collected and as long as three months before the hair 

sample is collected. Chad and Mia had possession of A.H. during that time. Again, we 

must defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and reasonable resolution of factual 

disputes. See J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d at 573.

Moreover, in addition to A.H. testing positive for methamphetamine, H.L.H. 

tested positive for drugs after being in Chad’s and Mia’s possession for about three days. 

Chad and Mia again denied that there had been any drug use, but Torres and Croy 

testified that a urine drug screen detects amphetamine/methamphetamine use within 

only seventy-two hours of the test. Torres and Croy noted that soon after the children 

were recovered, H.L.H.’s eyes were extremely dilated, she was exhibiting rapid mood 

swings, she was biting her lip so hard that it was bleeding, and she was regressing and 

acting like a little child. Croy again attempted to have Mia take a hair-strand drug test 

after the children had been recovered, but Mia never completed it. Mia also 

acknowledged having a very short relapse on March 30, 2015, which was shortly before 
In re H.L.H. Page 41

the children ran away and ended up in Chad’s and Mia’s possession. 

Finally, Chad acknowledged that he picked up H.L.H. and A.H. in direct violation 

of the trial court’s order. Chad and Mia then continued to violate the trial court’s order 

by spending several days with H.L.H. and A.H. At the time of the second termination 

trial, both Chad and Mia were therefore confined in jail, awaiting trial on the criminal 

charges that resulted from their actions.

A parent’s engaging in criminal conduct endangers the emotional well-being of a 

child because of the parent’s resulting incarceration. See Karl v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & 

Regulatory Servs., No. 03-03-00655-CV, 2004 WL 1573162, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Austin Jul. 

15, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 739 (“[C]onduct that subjects a 

child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the physical and emotional wellbeing of a child.”). While imprisonment alone is not a basis to terminate a parent’s rights,

it is an appropriate factor to consider because when a parent is incarcerated, he or she is 

absent from the child’s daily life and unable to provide support to the child, negatively 

impacting the child’s living environment and emotional well-being. In re M.R.J.M., 280 

S.W.3d 494, 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). 

Mia argues that she did not go with Chad to pick up the children, she did not have 

a telephone to call authorities, and Chad stated that he would not have allowed her to 

call the authorities even if she had a telephone. But Mia testified to the contrary, stating 

that she did pick up H.L.H. and A.H. when they ran away and that she called their 

caseworker and received no return phone call. 

Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s findings and 
In re H.L.H. Page 42

considering the evidence as a whole, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could 

have formed a firm belief or conviction that Chad knowingly placed or knowingly 

allowed H.L.H. to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered her physical or 

emotional well-being and that Chad engaged in conduct or knowingly placed H.L.H.

with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered her physical or emotional wellbeing. Likewise, considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s 

findings and considering the evidence as a whole, we conclude that a reasonable trier of 

fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mia knowingly placed or 

knowingly allowed H.L.H. and A.H. to remain in conditions or surroundings that 

endangered their physical or emotional well-being and that Mia engaged in conduct or 

knowingly placed H.L.H. and A.H. with persons who engaged in conduct that 

endangered their physical or emotional well-being. We thus hold that the evidence is 

legally and factually sufficient to establish that Chad and Mia violated Family Code 

subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). We overrule Chad’s second and third issues and 

Mia’s first and second issues.

In his fourth issue and in her third issue, Chad and Mia, respectively, contend that 

the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish that he and she, respectively, 

violated Family Code subsection 161.001(b)(1)(O). Having overruled Chad’s second and 

third issues and Mia’s first and second issues, however, we need not reach Chad’s fourth 

issue and Mia’s third issue. If multiple predicate violations under subsection 

161.001(b)(1) were found in the trial court, we can affirm based on any one ground 

because only one predicate violation under subsection 161.001(b)(1) is necessary to a 
In re H.L.H. Page 43

termination judgment. In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625, 629 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. 

denied), overruled in part on other grounds by In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2012, pet. denied). 

Best Interest of the Children

In his fifth issue, Chad contends that the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to support that termination of his parental rights to H.L.H. was in her best 

interest. In her fifth issue, Mia similarly contends that the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to support that termination of her parental rights to H.L.H. and A.H. was in 

the children’s best interest.

In determining the best interest of a child, a number of factors have been 

considered, including (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of 

the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now 

and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the 

programs available to assist these individuals; (6) the plans for the child by these 

individuals; (7) the stability of the home; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may 

indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for 

the acts or omissions of the parent. Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72. This list is not 

exhaustive, but simply indicates factors that have been or could be pertinent. Id. at 372. 

The Holley factors focus on the best interest of the child, not the best interest of the parent. 

Dupree, 907 S.W.2d at 86. The goal of establishing a stable, permanent home for a child is 

a compelling state interest. Id. at 87. The need for permanence is a paramount 

consideration for a child’s present and future physical and emotional needs. In re S.H.A., 
In re H.L.H. Page 44

728 S.W.2d 73, 92 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (en banc).

The Desires of the Children—H.L.H. would like to be returned to her family and 

believes that it would be in her best interest to be reunited with her family. Shepherd 

and Hughes testified that A.H. would like to be adopted by a young, active family. 

Mia argues that we do not know the true desires of A.H. because he did not testify 

and because A.H. had been receiving counseling from Shepherd, whose testimony

included “admitting” that he tries to redirect A.H.’s anger toward his parents. Shepherd 

actually testified that he is helping A.H. to stop blaming himself, which is the reason he 

self-harms, by helping A.H. shift the anger he feels back to the proper source, his parents, 

and then learn to forgive them. We must also defer to the jury’s determinations on 

credibility issues, as long as those determinations are reasonable. See J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 

at 573. From the evidence, the jury could have reasonably believed that A.H. would 

prefer adoption by a young, active family to the return to Mia’s care. 

The Emotional and Physical Needs of the Children Now and in the Future and the 

Emotional and Physical Danger to the Children Now and in the Future—Evidence of past 

misconduct or neglect can be used to measure a parent’s future conduct. See Williams v. 

Williams, 150 S.W.3d 436, 451 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied); Ray v. Burns, 832 

S.W.2d 431, 435 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992, no writ) (“Past is often prologue.”); see also In re 

V.A., No. 13-06-00237-CV, 2007 WL 293023, at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 1, 

2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering parent’s past history of unstable housing, unstable 

employment, unstable relationships, and drug usage). Often, the best interest of the child 

is infused with the statutory offensive behavior. In re W.E.C., 110 S.W.3d 231, 240 (Tex. 
In re H.L.H. Page 45

App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). Particularly when the evidence shows that the parental 

relationship endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being, evidence of the 

parental misconduct leading to the removal and subsequent termination should be 

considered when reviewing the best interest of the child. In re C.C., No. 13-07-00541-CV, 

2009 WL 866822, at *10 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 2, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 

A parent’s history, admissions, drug abuse, and inability to maintain a lifestyle free from 

arrests and incarcerations are relevant to the best-interest determination. In re D.M., 58 

S.W.3d 801, 814 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). 

We have already held above that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to 

establish that Chad knowingly placed or knowingly allowed H.L.H. to remain in 

conditions or surroundings that endangered her physical or emotional well-being and 

that Chad engaged in conduct or knowingly placed H.L.H. with persons who engaged in 

conduct that endangered her physical or emotional well-being. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E). Likewise, we have already held above that the evidence is legally 

and factually sufficient to establish that Mia knowingly placed or knowingly allowed 

H.L.H. and A.H. to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical 

or emotional well-being and that Mia engaged in conduct or knowingly placed H.L.H. 

and A.H. with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their physical or 

emotional well-being. See id. The evidence of Chad’s and Mia’s endangering conduct 

supports an inference that because of their past actions, Chad’s and Mia’s future conduct 

will continue to pose a danger to the children’s physical and emotional well-being. See, 

e.g., In re Z.I.A.R., No. 10-16-00039-CV, 2016 WL 4150691, at *5 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 3, 
In re H.L.H. Page 46

2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Furthermore, Chad’s and Mia’s confinement in jail at the time 

of the second termination trial makes their future uncertain and is relevant to their ability 

to meet the children’s present and future physical and emotional needs. In re M.D.S., 1 

S.W.3d 190, 200 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.). 

The Parental Abilities of the Individuals Seeking Custody and the Programs Available to 

Assist These Individuals—Chad explains that he was in jail at the time of the second 

termination trial where most of the required services are unavailable. Mia notes that she 

completed the parenting classes required by the service plan. She also points out that 

there was no evidence that before the removal on March 30, 2015, the children were dirty, 

malnourished, bruised, or injured in any way. 

But there was evidence that after the children ran away from their foster home and 

were with Chad and Mia for about three days, the children appeared to be in poor 

condition. Hughes testified that A.H. was dirty and seemed to be very hungry. Croy 

testified that H.L.H. looked tired, her clothes were disheveled, and it appeared as though

she had not bathed in a couple of days. H.L.H. also tested positive for drugs. Chad and 

Mia denied that there had been any drug use, but soon after the children were recovered, 

Torres and Croy noted that H.L.H.’s eyes were extremely dilated, she was exhibiting 

rapid mood swings, she was biting her lip so hard that it was bleeding, and she was 

regressing and acting like a little child. 

In reviewing the parental abilities of a parent, a factfinder can consider the parent’s 

past neglect or past inability to meet the physical and emotional needs of their children. 

See D.O. v. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs., 851 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no 
In re H.L.H. Page 47

writ), disapproved of on other grounds by J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 267 & n.39. Therefore, the jury 

could have considered the foregoing evidence in determining that Chad and Mia have

poor parenting abilities.

On the other hand, the evidence indicates that H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s needs were 

being met in their placements. A.H. was receiving counseling with Shepherd at the time 

of the second termination trial. H.L.H. was living in a residential treatment center where 

she could receive intensive therapy and counseling. And there was no evidence 

presented regarding programs available to the parents after a return.

The Plans for the Children by the Individuals or by the Agency Seeking Custody and the 

Stability of the Home or Proposed Placement—The factfinder may compare the parent’s and 

the Department’s plans for the children and consider whether the plan and expectations 

of each party are realistic or weak and ill-defined. In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 119-20 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

A parent’s failure to show that he or she is stable enough to parent children for 

any prolonged period entitles the factfinder “to determine that this pattern would likely 

continue and that permanency could only be achieved through termination and 

adoption.” In re B.S.W., No. 14-04-00496-CV, 2004 WL 2964015, at *9 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 23, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). A factfinder may also consider 

the consequences of its failure to terminate parental rights and that the best interest of the 

children may be served by termination so that adoption may occur rather than the 

temporary foster-care arrangement that would result if termination did not occur. D.O.,

851 S.W.2d at 358. The goal of establishing a stable, permanent home for children is a 
In re H.L.H. Page 48

compelling state interest. Dupree, 907 S.W.2d at 87.

The Department’s plan for the children was termination of parental rights and 

unrelated adoption. Chad and Mia wanted the children returned to them; however, they 

were confined in jail at the time of the second termination trial. 

Chad argues that an incarcerated parent can provide a safe environment for a child 

through family members and that he and Mia have a lot of family support. But the 

Department had not found a suitable familial placement for the children. Both Chad and 

Mia also testified that when they were no longer confined in jail, they planned to move 

with the children to another state, presumably away from their family support.

Acts or Omissions of the Parent that May Indicate the Existing Parent-Child Relationship 

Is Not a Proper One and Any Excuse for the Acts or Omissions of the Parent—The evidence 

discussed above indicates that Chad’s relationship with H.L.H. is not a proper one. 

Likewise, the evidence discussed above indicates that Mia’s relationship with H.L.H. and 

A.H. is not a proper one. Any excuses for Chad’s or Mia’s acts or omissions have been 

discussed above.

Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s finding and 

considering the evidence as a whole, we hold that a reasonable factfinder could have 

formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Chad’s parental rights was in 

H.L.H.’s best interest. Likewise, considering all the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the jury’s finding and considering the evidence as a whole, we hold that a reasonable 

factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mia’s parental 

rights was in H.L.H.’s and A.H.’s best interest. We overrule both Chad’s and Mia’s fifth 
In re H.L.H. Page 49

issues.

Mia’s Issue Four

In her fourth issue, Mia contends that the application of Family Code subsection 

161.001(b)(1)(O) violated her due-process and equal-protection rights because the 

services required under her service plan were unavailable to her during her involuntary 

confinement and the Department refused to make the services available to her, rendering 

it impossible for her to complete the service plan. The Department responds that Mia has 

failed to preserve her complaint. We agree.

It is well settled that challenges to the constitutionality of a statute may be waived. 

In re R.B., 225 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). In the absence of 

such a complaint in the trial court, we are without authority to consider it. Id.; see TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1(a). In this case, Mia did not raise a complaint in the trial court that subsection 

161.001(b)(1)(O) violated her due-process or equal-protection rights. Mia has therefore 

failed to preserve her complaint for review, and we overrule her fourth issue.

Chad’s Issue Six

In his sixth issue, Chad contends that the trial court erred in denying the plea in 

intervention of his mother (alias Kay). It is well established that “[a]n appealing party 

‘may not complain of errors which do not injuriously affect him or which merely affect 

the rights of others.’” Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 150 (Tex. 1982) 

(quoting Jackson v. Fontaine’s Clinics, Inc., 499 S.W.2d 87, 92 (Tex. 1973)). Here, the trial 
In re H.L.H. Page 50

court’s ruling in denying Kay’s plea in intervention injuriously affected only Kay.6 

Because the trial court’s ruling did not injuriously affect Chad, we hold that Chad lacks 

standing to raise this issue. In re E.N.J., No. 06-15-00019-CV, 2015 WL 5917726, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana Aug. 13, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re R.T.M., No. 06-14-00063-CV, 

2014 WL 6977778, at *5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 4, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also 

E.A. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-15-00811-CV, 2016 WL 1639847, at *4 

(Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 21, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We overrule Chad’s sixth 

issue.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

(Chief Justice Gray concurring with a note)*

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 14, 2018

[CV06]

* (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the Court’s judgment to the extent it affirms the trial 

court’s judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.) 

 

6 Kay filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying her original verified petition in 

intervention; however, she did not file a brief. The Clerk of this Court notified Kay in a letter that, under 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3, the Court may dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution 

unless, within twenty-one days of the date of the letter, she filed with the Court a response showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than twenty-one days 

passed, and we received no response from Kay. Accordingly, we dismissed Kay’s appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).