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

NO. 03
- 21
- 00670
- CV

A. F. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 20-0087-CPS425, THE HONORABLE BET SY F. LAMBETH , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A.F. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights to t hree children : R.G. (age d 9 at time of removal) , J.F. (4), and A.F . ( 11 months). 1 F ather argues that there is legally

an d factually insufficient evidence to support the district court ’ s finding s that termination is the
best interest of the children. We affirm.

BAC KG ROUND
Father and “ Bianc a” are the parents of R.G., who was born in 2010. Father and
Bianca separated shortly before his birt h . For the next five years, R.G. l ived with Bianca and his grandmother (Grandm o ther ) and saw Father approximately once a month. Even th at contact ceased when Bian ca and R.G. moved to O regon in 2016. In April of 2020, a n Oregon court

1 W e ref er to the ch ildren by their initials and the ir parents by pseudon yms
. Se e Tex. Fa m. Code § 109.002 (d) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.8 (b)

.2 awa r ded Father custody of R.G. , and they re turned to Texas , where Father lived with th e three
children and “ Louise ”

— the mother of J.F. and A .F

. — in Round Rock

. In November of 2020, t he Depart ment of Family and Protective Services removed the chil dren after re c eiving report s of
several incident s of domest ic violence in the home.
The Department filed this suit affecting the parent

- chi ld relati ons h i p seeking

tem porary cust ody of the children and to terminate the rights of Father , Louise , and Bia nca
. The
distri c t court appointed the Department temporary ma naging conservato r o f the children. R .G.

was pl aced with Grandmother where he re mai ned at the time of trial. The Dep artme nt initially place d J .F. and A.F. in foster home s but l ate r returned t hem to Louise ’ s cus tody

. T he Department sub sequently withdrew its re quest to terminate Louise ’ s rights and asked the court to

a

ppoint her sole man agi ng conse rvator of J.F. and A.F

. Th e pa rties tri ed the case to the bench ov er two non

- cons ecut ive days i n N ovember and Decemb e r of 2021

. Departmen t supervisor Dominique Bush testified that the Department opened an investigation in May of 2020 afte r receiv ing a report of domestic violence
i n th e home. She did not provide specifics o f the first incide nt, bu t th e sec ond a llegedly

o ccurred o n A u gust 29, 2020 at a supermarket in Round Rock

. O fficer Robert Sauc edo of the
Round Rock Poli ce Department testified tha t he responded to a re port of three people arguing in
the store. He found Father argui ng with Lo uis e an d “Emily. ” O f ficer Saucedo testified that
Father was “ p acing back and forth pulling on his hair ” and “mumbling ” uni ntelligibly

. Father
d id not re spond to O fficer Sauc edo ’ s questions but “ kep t mumbling and continued pulling hi s hair fro m his head

. ” F a the r eventually told O fficer Saucedo that he , Louise, and Emily “ were all in a relationship together. ”3 Louise allegedly told Of ficer Sa u cedo that Father had assa ulted her whe n s he and Emily returned home from Corpus C h risti earlier th at d ay. According t o Lou ise, s hortly after they arrived, Father pu s hed Louise into the bathroom and locked the door beh ind t hem , holdin g her down and tr ying to wrap the belt of a bath robe around h er neck. Louise alleged that she foug ht back by placing her hands between her n e ck and the be lt , but t hat Father stomped on h er head and tri e d to cut off her hair with s cissor s , leading Louise to gra b the scissors and force
Father to unlock t he door so th at she and Emily could leave the residenc e on foot

. Office r Sa uced o later tes ti f ied th at he observed f re sh scratc h marks on L ouise’ s l eft forea rm , bicep s , a nd knee and br uising on he r thigh and shoulder , and that F a ther did not respon d to his questions bu t c on t inued saying things such as “ Jupiter and Mars had aligned ” a nd “ ta , da , t a , d a
. ”
He then t old O f ficer Saucedo that t he y were arguing because “ it was hi s girlfri end ’ s birthday and
he did n ’ t ha ve any m oney, and then that his girlfriend had thrown the rin g a way. ” Father ultimately ad mitte d to Saucedo that he was ang ry that the t w o w omen had gone t o Co r pus Christi
without hi m. T he Depart ment contacted F ather and Louise at that time , bu t ne ither was cooperat ive according to B u sh

. The Department con tac ted Fa ther and Louise again in October
of 2020 and offered family

- based service s , but both declined

. In November of 2020, F a ther and
Lo u ise had “ a pretty severe phy sical a lte rcation ” where th ey fought with knives and Father

“ stomped on [Louise ’s] head, [and] ba nge d h er head on the ground severa l time s. ” B u sh
testified that t he Depa r tment decided to remove t he children because Fath er and Louise wer e dismissive of the Department ’ s concerns regarding the inciden t

. L ouise testified that Father was violent toward her d uring their entire relationship, which began in 201 3 and ende d in De c ember o f 2020. Louise con f irme d Officer Sauce do ’s4 testim on y re garding the August incident except that she did not recall saying Father had s tomp ed
on h er head

. He sent her t hreaten ing m essages f or months after the relationship ended , including during tr i al. Fa t her often c ame to s ee her at the bank where sh e worke d until he was given a
criminal

- trespass warning . After that, he would park across the street an d watch the ent rance. S ometimes he would “ drive around the building playing music really lo ud ” o r “ would park ri ght

next to the d rive

- up window whe re [ she ] was working at and ki nd of just sitting there
and watch

. ”
There was evidence that Father a lso subjected Louise ’ s m other to similar

treatment. O fficer Corey Hale of the Austin P o lice D epartment t e stified that he respo nded t o a disturb ance at h er house in March of 2021. T he caller was “hysterical ” and could only inform the dispatcher t hat someone had arrived in a blac k ve hi cle. T he vehicle was not present when
Officer Hale arr ived , but both door s of the t wo - car garage wer e “ sm as hed in. ” Offic er Hale
reviewe d footage from a n eighb or ’s security camera that showed a black sedan “ pull int o the complainant ’ s driveway, run i nt o the garage door, back out and then run into the other
gara ge doo r. ” Someo n e began c alling Louise ’ s mot h er continuous ly whi le she was talking to
Officer Hal e. She answered an d put the caller on speaker so that Officer Hale coul d listen. The
caller repeated ly said , “ Next time is a fire , ” asked the location of h is chil dren , and s aid , “ [T] his is why this is h appe ning to yo u. ” L ouise ’ s mother r e c o g n i z e d the voice as Father ’ s
. Officer Hale
testified that he later ascertained that F ather drive s a b lack sedan. Several neighbors told
Of ficer Hale that they had seen a simila r vehi cle idling in front of L.N. ’ s ho u se on previous occ as ions

. After the children ’ s removal, the di strict court order ed Father to complete the

s ervice plan drawn up by th e Department. The plan requir ed him to c om p let e psychological a nd5 psychiatric ev aluations , a tten d and full y cooperate in c ounseling sessi on s , comp lete a m edication evaluation, attend parenting classes, attend a batterer ’s intervention program, and drug t e st regularly , among other requirements

. The ca sework er ass igned by the Department te stif i ed th at she p rovided Father with referrals containin g the con tact inf orm ation for specific providers, b ut he did not immediately follow up
. F ather eventually completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. Franc es G ordon in May of 2021. Father report ed p r evious diagnose s of b ipolar diso rd e r at th e age of fif teen , anxiety , and a t tenti on d eficit h yperactivity d isorder

. He also reported a hist ory of suicidal ideation beginn i ng at the age of 15 . T h e most recent su ic idal incident was December of 202 0 , af

ter L ouise and Emily ended their relat i o nship s with him

. Dr. Gordon te stified that his
responses to the personality assessmen t showed an unusual degre e of “ suspiciousness and
mistrust in his relations , ” difficul ty acknowledging h ow his acti ons affect others , a nd a tendency

t o attribut e setb ack s to exte rn al fo rces. Dr. Gordon diagnos ed him with b ipol ar d isorde r t ype I,

u nspe cified anxiety disorder, and an unspecified adjus tment disorder. She recommend ed that he

co mplete a medication evaluation , atten d coun s e l i ng to address h is anger issues and domestic
violen ce classes , an d undergo regular dr ug testing.
Dr. S afa Rubaye completed Father ’ s psychiatric evaluation the followi ng month.
He diagnosed Fa ther with m ajor d epre ssive disorder and borderline per sonalit y d isorder. He des cribed the sym pto ms of b orderline p erson ality d i sorder as a “ chro nic feeling of emptin ess and
kind of like low self

- esteem and fear of abandonment and also fluctuation in mood. ” Treat me n t of borde rline personality disorder consis ts of t he r ap y to help indi viduals gain the sk i lls necessary

to man age the symptoms

. Dr. Ru baye recommended that Father start therapy , keep taking6 his medications, and attend a parenting class. Without “ long t er m ” me dicati on and therapy , Dr. Rubaye believ ed there w ould be “ n o i mpr ovement ” in Father ’ s sym ptoms

. T he caseworker test ified that Fa ther d id not begi n to follow through with these
recommendations until approximate ly one and a half months before tria l. I n October 2021,
Father met t he casewor k er ’ s superviso r and accused her of prov iding i ncorr e ct phone number s
. The supervisor cal led the numbers with him, and all were accurate. Nevertheless, h e did not set
up a counseling appointment until th e we ek be fore the trial date. He att ended the initi al appointment for a batterers ’ int ervention progra m but lef t af ter getting int o an argument with the provider . He attend ed the initial meeting of a parenting class but di d not s tart the course. He

neve r co mpleted the medication evaluation because , as he described it, “ that service did

not exist. ”
The ca s eworke r and CASA volunteer Stephanie Gutierrez both testified to
Father ’ s continuing erratic behavior

. T he caseworker testified that Father had “ called my bosses claiming thi ngs I ’ ve not sai d ” and sen t group texts t o her supervisors. Father ’ s erratic be h avior
extended t o visitations with the children

. On e inciden t occurred while the caseworker was observing a Zoom call between Father , J.F. , and A.F

. Father asked the caseworker to make the
i mage of the childr en big g e r , and she replied that she did not k n o w how to do that when using her phone

. F ather accus ed her o f ly ing , told J.F. “ this is why we don ’ t trust w hite people , ” an d
ended the c all. Gutierrez testified that Father was “ kind ” at first but then began calli n g her late a t night or early in the mo r ning using “ inappropriate language. ”
F ather test ified to a differ ent version of t he events leading up to the removal of
the children and h is t reatment by the Department

. While conceding that there had been inc idents
of domestic violenc e, he testified tha t Loui se was the aggressor most of the time. He described7 an inci dent in N o vember 2020 ( not the one that caused the removal) , w here Louise “ pulled a
knife on [him] and held [him ] at kni fe point for a bout four hour s. ” He c laimed the chi ldren were
pre sent a nd that R.G

. would confirm h i s versio n o f events. He denied ramming h is car into
Louise ’ s mother ’ s house and accused Officer Hale of lyin g. He also stated that the children
never witnesse d domesti c violence prior t o that date. Gutier rez testified that R .G. o nce told he r that “ [Fat her] kicked [Lo uise] in the knee and s he fell and th e n he kick ed her in the head, he hurt
her a lot. ”
Father stat ed that he delaye d engaging in services because he was b riefly
incarcerat e d and twice ch ecke d h imself into a menta l h o spital for treatment of sui cidal ideation.
He accused the ca sew o rker of hin dering his progress b y treating him “ as a criminal ” when h e

wa s actually “ the victim in the matter

. ” T he caseworker , on the other hand , testified that Fathe r told her “ a coupl e of months ” before trial that he “ did n ’ t need a ny stupid service s. ”
Father co nceded that h e had been arrest e d fo r violating a protective order

“ probab ly more than nine times , ” twice for domesti c violence, and onc e each for making a

terr oristic thre at, tre s pass ing , and harass ing a public serv ant

. He wa s convicted for viola ting

a protective order in 2011 and 2012 and , at the time of t rial, was serving a term of
deferred

- adjudication p robat ion for five years

. Four o f the arrests came afte r the childr en ’ s

re m oval and he ha d “ a few ” outstanding warrant s at trial.
The c asewor ker testified that J.F. expressed excitement about visits with his father but that he and A.F. often appeared bored du ring the visit. Gutierrez testi fied that J.F. and A .F.
ha d no t asked a b out Fa the r since December of 2020. T he caseworker testified that R. G. , in

contrast , usually enjoyed visits with Father but rece ntly had become “ shutdown ” an d was unwilling to engage

. She described R.G. as “ re l ieved ” to learn that he c ould opt o ut of vis i ts8 with Father. Shannon Overl and, R.G. ’ s therapist, te stified th at he w as “ neutral ” towards his father and expressed happ i ness at the thought of adoption by his Grandmother

. T he case w orker and Gutierrez both t e stified that J.F. and A.F

. are doi ng well wi t h
their mother , that R.G. is doing well with Grandmother, and that it is in their best int erest to make their situations permane nt

. The caseworker testified that J

. F . a nd A.F. are “very b onded ”
to their mother

. Louise and the casework er agreed th at J.F. and A.F . have not exhibited the
“se vere viol ent behavior issue s ” they displayed in the foster home since th eir return to Louise ’ s

c ust ody. T he case worker recommend e d th at Louise ha ve full custody b ecause it is important that they have a stabl e and p erman e nt home. Louise ’ s statement that she was willing to allow
Father to visit the children under appropriate s upervision did n ot affect t hat recommendation
because , in the caseworker ’ s view, Louise “ knows his past history and his behaviors and I think

s he ’ s v ery smart enough to know when [Father ] is in a good place to see his boys. ” Gutierrez agreed that it is i n the best interest of J.F. and A.F. to remain with Louise an d tha t she has n o

co ncerns with Louise ’ s pa r enting abilities.
T he cas eworker describe d R

. G. as “ very bonded ” to Grandmother and observed
that they hav e a “ really good relationship. ” Grandmother mee ts all of R.G. ’ s needs , including taking him to all medical , t herapy, and t utor in g app oint ments

. G u tierrez testified that R.G. expressed to he r t h at he wants to live with Grandmother and asked that his visit s with Father be
virtual because he was afraid “ [Father ] ’ s going to take me away again. ” The Department plan s for Grandmother to adopt R.G. , w ho h a s exp ressed willingnes s to do so. Gutierre z t e stified that
termination is in R. G. ’ s best interest so that he can have a stable hom e with Grandmother.
Aft er clos ing arguments , t h e dis trict cou rt found with respect t o Father that the
De par t ment had prove n by clear and convincing ev id en c e three predicat e grounds for t ermination9 a nd that termination is in the best interest of each child

. S ee Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001 (b)(1)( D ), (E) , (O ), (b)(2). In two orders, the district court rendered jud g ment termin ating Fath er ’ s ri gh t s to th e children and appoint ing t he Department permanent mana ging conservator of R .G. , and appointing Louise sol e managing conser vato r of J.F. and A.F

. 2 Father appealed , challenging t he sufficiency of the evidence to support the best

- i nterest de terminat i on s
.
ANAL Y SIS
A c ourt may order t e rminat ion o f the parent

- child rela tions hip if “ clear and

c onvincing evidence su pports that a parent engaged in one or more of the [st atuto ril y ]
enumerat ed grounds for termination an d that te rmination is in the bes t intere s t of the c hild

. ” In

re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 230 , 232 ( Tex. 2019) (per c uriam ) (citing Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b) ).
Clear and con vincing evidence is “ t he measure or deg ree of pr oof that wi ll produce in the mind
of the trier of fact a firm belief or convicti o n as to t h e truth of the allegati o ns sou ght t o be

e stablished. ” Tex . Fam . Code § 101.007

. “ This heightened p roo f standard car ries the weight and gravity due process requi res to protect the fundamental rights at st ake

. ” In re A.C. , 56 0 S.W.3d 62 4, 630 ( T ex. 2018)

. Th e heightened standar d of pr oof “ nec ess itates a commensu ratel y heightened
standa rd of review.” Id

. a t 626

. “The d istinction between le gal and factual sufficie ncy lies in th e extent to which disputed ev idence co ntrary to a f inding may be cons i dered.” I d

. at 630.
“Evidence is legall y su f ficien t if, viewing all the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the
fact

- findi ng and considering undispute d contrary eviden ce, a reasonab le factfinder could form a
fi rm belief or convicti o n that the finding was true. ” Id . at 631. Factual

- s uffici ency review , on

2 T he district court also terminated Bian ca ’ s rights. S he did not appeal.10 the other ha nd, “ requires weighing d isputed evidence c ont rary to the fi nding against all the evidence favoring the f ind ing.” Id

. “In a factual

- sufficiency re view, the appellate c o urt must

c onsider w hether di s puted evidence is such t hat a reas o nable factfinder could not h ave resolved it
in favor of the findi ng. ” Id . “Evide nce is factually insufficient if, in li ght of th e entire re cord, the disputed evidence a reasonab le factfinde r could not have cr e dited in f avor of a finding is so signif ican t that the factfinder co uld n ot have formed a fi rm belief or convi cti on that the fi nding
was true.” Id

. Father concedes th at th e D epartme nt p roved a t least one statutory ground fo r terminatio n but chall enges th e sufficie n cy of the best interest findin g. “ [T]her e is a strong
pre sumpt ion that the best i nterest of a child is served by kee ping the child with a parent.” In re
R.R. , 2 09 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006). “And becau se of the strong pres u mption in favor of
maintaini n g the parent

- child rela t ionshi p an d the d ue process implic ation s of terminating a parent’s rights to he r minor child without clear and convincing evidence, ‘th e b est interest

s tandard does not permit termi nation me rely because a child mi ght be b e tter off l iving
elsewhere.’” In r e D.L. W.W. , 617 S .W.3d 64, 81 (Tex . App

. — Houston [1st Dist .] 2020, no pet.) (qu oting In re J. G.S. , 574 S.W.3d 101, 121

– 22 (Tex. App.

— Ho ust on [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied)). The De partment ’ s burden “ is not simply to prov e that a p a rent should not have cu s tody

o f he r child ; [the Department ] mus t meet the heighten ed burden to prove , b y clear and

co nvincing evidence, that the parent should no lon ger have an y relationship with her child
whatsoev er.” Id.
In determi ning the best inter es t of the child, we consi d er the n on - exc lusive Holley fac tors:11 • the children ’ s wis hes;

• the children ’ s present and fu ture emotional and physical needs;

• any emoti ona l and physi cal danger to the children no w and in the future;

• the parent al abili t ies of the indi viduals seeking cust ody;

• the progra ms available to a ssist the individuals se eking custody to p rom ote the best i nterest of the children;

• the plans for the c hil dren by the individuals or agency seekin g custody ;

• the stabi l ity of the home or proposed p lacement ;

• parental acts or om iss i o ns whi ch may indicate t hat t he existing parent

- child relationship is improper; and

• any excuse for the parent ’ s acts or omissio ns. Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 37 1

– 72 (Tex. 1976) . A best

- inte rest f indin g d o es not r e q uir e proof of a specific fa c tor or s et of fac tor s as a condit i on precedent to term ination. In re C.H. , 8 9 S .W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). Regarding the phys ical and emotional danger to the children , the record supports that Father committ ed numerou s in cidents of do mestic violence while the chil d ren were present in the home

. R.G. told Gutierrez that he w atched Father kick Louise in the head during o ne of
th es e incidents , and Father testified that R.G. witnessed a different incident

. H is v iolent beh a vior
was not limited t o Louise

— at least five w o men h eld protective orders against hi m, and he was arrested at least nine times for violating those orders. He was arrested twice for domestic
violence and , on other occasions , f or making a terrori stic threa t , trespassing, and har assing a public servant

. Four of the arrests came after the children ’ s remo val, and he was incarcerated once during the pendency of the case. Additionally, the evidence support s a n inference that
Father was the perpetrato r of the a t tack on Louise ’ s mothe r ’ s house. Father ’ s cri m inal activity ,12 including the domestic violence , support s the best interest finding. See In re J.D.U. , No. 04

- 21

- 00527

- CV, 2022 WL 947571, at *3 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio M ar. 30, 2022, no pet. h. ) ( m em. op.) ( “ E vidence of a parent ’ s history of domestic viol e nce supports a trial court ’ s best

- interest finding. ”) ; I n re A.J.E.M.

- B. , No. 14

- 14

- 00424

- CV, 2014 WL 5795484, at *14 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( noting that “ evidence o f parent ’ s inability to maintain a lifestyle fr e e fro m arrests and incarcerations is relevant to best
interest determination ” )

. When asked about his plans for the children, Father testified that he p lanned for
them to remain in their current hom es while he addresses his pending criminal charges

. He de c lined to provide any deta ils about how he intended to resolve the charges or how he would support the children if incarcerated

. “ A parent ’ s current and future incarce ration is relevant to his ability to meet the child ’ s present an d future physical and em o tiona l needs, and the parent ’ s incarceration at the time of trial makes his future uncertain. ” E

. B. v. Tex as Dep ’ t of Fam

. & Protective Serv s
. , No. 03

- 18

- 00427

- CV, 201 8 WL 6056959, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Austin
No v
. 20, 2018, pet. denie d) (mem. op.)

. Even if i ncarceration were not an issue , Father ha s no t shown an ability to provide for the children. H e h ad five jobs since December of 2020 and was homeless at times during the pendency of the ca se. At the time of the ps y chological eval uation , Father was livin g and working at a Motel 6. He testified at trial that he is currently self employed as a mechanic making $ 2,000 a month but had not made child support payments

. Father explained that he d oes not “want to gi v e [his] kids money ” an d preferred to provide t h em with “shoes, clothes , toys, things of that nature

. ” M o reover, Father admitted that he smoke d marijuana re gularly wh ile caring for the children but denied that A.F. test ed positive becau se of
his use

. Fat h er ’ s drug use , financi al problems, and inabili t y to maintain a stable residence13 supports that he would be unable to provide a stable home for the children

. See In re T.L.B. Jr. , No. 01

- 16

- 00806

- CV, 2017 WL 1019520, at *11 (Tex. App.

— Ho uston [1st D ist.] M a r. 16, 2017 , no pet.) (mem. op.) ( “ A parent ’ s d rug use has also been found to be a condition that can indicate instability in the home environment. ” ) ; In re S.R. , 452 S.W.3d 351, 367 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) ( “ Lack of stability, i ncluding a stable home , supports a finding
tha t the parent is unable to provide for a child ’ s emotional and physical needs. ” ).
Evidence that Father failed to engage with services also supports the best

- interest
fin ding. See In re E.C.R

. , 402 S.W.3d 239, 2 49 (Tex. 2013)

. The D epartment prepared a ser v ice plan for Father that required him to c om p let e psychological a nd psychiatric evaluations , a tten d
and full y cooperate in counseling sessi on s , comp lete a m edication evaluation, attend pare nting classes, atte n d a batterer ’s interve ntion program, and drug t e st regularly

. After completing the evaluations, Father made no attempt to follow through with the recommendations

— or engage any of the other services

— until approximately a month b efo re trial

. He did not se t up a counseling appoi ntment until th e we ek be f ore the trial dat e , and o nly attended one meeting of the
batterers ’ int ervention program and the parenting class

. He neve r co mpleted the medication
evaluation because , as h e described it, “ that service did n o t exist ” and stated th at psychiatric
medicatio n s would not help hi s depression

. Father insists th at his actio n s were “ not so egregious that they demand termination
of h is parental rights o n their own ” and t hat the record shows he did the best he could u n der t he
circumstances. As ostensible support fo r this argument, h e points to his testimony that he that he was not the principal aggressor in the altercations with Louise , that he did not damage her
mother ’ s house, and that the case worker prevented him f r om accessing the service s he needed.
He insists that he enga ged with the Department as much as possi ble given h is incarceration,14 hospitaliza tion , and the casewo rker ’ s hostility. However, the district court is “ the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor o f wi tnesses

. ” In re H.R.M

. , 20 9 S. W.3d 1 05, 109 (Tex. 200 6) (per curiam) . Here, the district court could reasonab l y have di sregard ed his
testim ony and instead credit other testimony that he was not in terested in taking the steps necessary to regain custod y until shortly before tr ial

. S e e In re J. G. S. , 574 S.W.3 d at 114 ( “ W e

ar e not to ‘ second

- guess the trial court ’ s re solution of a factual dispute b y relying on evidence
th at is either disp uted, or that the court could easily have rejected as not credible. ’ ” (q uo ti ng In re
L.M.I. , 119 S .W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. 2003) ) )

. Father neve r theless argues that termination is unwarranted bec ause the rec ord
shows that h e can maintain his relationship with the children without endangering them. In essence, he argue s that the st at us quo at the begi nning of trial serves the best interest of the

c hildren b y ena bling them to maintain the parent

- ch ild relationship safel y. He also poin ts to the testimony of Dr. Gi bson and Dr. Rubaye that he would benefit from therapy and argue s that

no thing in the recor d sho w s he would not be able to progress if aff o rded more time. W hile courts must recognize a parent ’ s constitutional right to his children , “ it is also essential that emotional and physical interests of the child not be sacrifi c ed mer ely to preser ve that righ t

. ”
See C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 26

. Gutierrez testified that R.G. expressed fear that Father would “ take [him] away ” from Grandmother and that R.G . needed to know his situation wa s permanent. The
caseworker testified that J

. F

. a nd A. F. are “very bonded ” to t h eir mother and have not exhibite d
the “se vere viol ent behavior issue s ” they displayed in the foster home since th eir return to
Louise ’ s c ust ody. Louise a nd the caseworker agreed that termination is the best interest of J.F

. and A .F. so th at L ouise c an pr o tect them from Father ’ s instability. “ A chi ld ’ s need for permanence through the establishment of a stable, permanent home ’ is ‘ the paramount15 consideration in a best

- interest determination. ’ ” See E. N. v. Tex as Dep ’ t of Fam

. & Pro tective
Serv s
. , No. 03

- 21

- 00014

- CV, 2021 WL 2460625, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Austin June 17, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting In re L.G.R. , 498 S.W.3d 195, 205 (Tex. App.

— Ho uston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) ). By his own admission, Father cou ld not p r ovide such a home at the t ime o f
trial and based on this record, the district court could have reasonably conclude d he would not b e able to in th e future. See In re J.O.H. , 617 S

. W.3d 596, 599 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2020, no pet. ) ( “ [I] n determining whet h er ter mination of the par e nt

- ch i ld relationship is in the best in terest of a child, a factfinder may judge a parent ’ s future conduct by her past conduct. ” ).
Co nsider ing the ent ire record , we conclude tha t the disputed eviden ce is no t so sign if icant th a t the fa ctfinder c ould no t hav e for m ed a firm belief or conviction that termination
is the best interest of the children

. See I n r e J.D.U. , 20 22 WL 947571, at *3 ( up holding
best

- interest finding based on repeated epis odes of domestic violence ); In re S.R

. , 452 S.W.3d at
370 (up hold ing best

- inter est finding “ based on the Fath er ’ s lack of stable h ousing, lack of s ta ble employment, noncompliance with servic es, pattern of domestic violence, and other criminal
behavior that result ed in peri ods of incarce ration , even while these proce edin gs were p endin g ” )

. Because the evidence is factually suff icient to support the challenged finding , it is
necessaril y legally suffic ient to do so

. See K. D. v. Tex as De p ’ t of Fam

. & Protective Serv s
. , No. 03

- 20

- 00116

- CV, 2020 WL 446232 0, at * 4 (Tex . App.

— Aust in Ju l y 15, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op. ) ( “ Evidence t hat is factua lly sufficient to support a trial cour t ’ s finding nece s sarily satisfies the legal

- sufficiency stan d ard. ” ) ; In re A. S. , No. 02

- 16

- 00076

- CV, 2016 WL 3364838,

at *7 (Te x. App.

— Fort Worth June 16, 2 0 16, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( “ I f t he e vidence is fac tua lly
suffic ient, then it is necessarily legally s ufficient as wel l

. ” ) ; In re M.V.G. , 440 S.W.3d 54, 60 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2010, no pet.) ( “ [B] ecause the evidence is factual l y suff icient, it is16 necessaril y leg a lly sufficient ” ( citi ng In re D.S.A. , 113 S.W.3d 5 67, 573 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003, no pet.) ))

. W e ov errule F ather ’ s sole issue.

CONCL USION
We affirm the district court’s orders

.

___________________ __________ ____ _

_

_

_

_____ Edwa rd Smit h , Justice
Before Chi ef Justice Byrne, Jus t i ce s Kelly and S mith
Affirmed
Filed: June 9, 202 2