1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00108-CV 

________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.G.G.

________________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 1A District Court

Tyler County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 25,800

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to Cade.

1,2 In three issues 

on appeal, Mother argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to 

1

 The child’s father did not file an appeal.

2 We refer to the appellant as “Mother” and her child by a pseudonym to 

protect their identities. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 

9.8(b)(2).
2

terminate her parental rights under sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (P) of the 

Texas Family Code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.00(b)(1)(D), (E), (P).3 We affirm. 

I. Background

A. Pretrial Proceedings 

In September 2021, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the 

Department) filed an Original Petition for Protection of a Child, for Conservatorship, 

and for Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. In its Affidavit 

in Support of Removal the Department alleged that on August 29, 2021, Mother 

gave birth to Cade, and that subsequently it received a report from the hospital, 

which according to the affidavit of removal states:

Corbin tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine at birth 

and is currently in NICU due to withdrawals and being unable to eat 

properly. Mother, [ ], did not receive full prenatal care. Mother and 

child both tested positive at birth for methamphetamine and 

amphetamines in their urine. Mother also tested positive for

buprenorphine.4

3 Mother does not challenge the trial court’s finding that termination of her

parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 

161.002(b)(2).

4 The trial court took judicial notice of its file, specifically all orders within 

the file, “as to the parents’ respective service plans, excepting any and all hearsay in 

both plans.” “The record does not reflect that the affidavit of removal was offered 

into evidence at trial or judicially noticed by the trial court. Nevertheless, because it 

was evidence that could have been considered by the trial court in support of its 

finding that [the child] was removed based on abuse or neglect ... we include it for 

the purpose of providing background and context for this opinion.” In re K.N.D., No. 

01-12-00584-CV, 2014 WL 3970642, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Aug. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g) (citing In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 

240–41 (Tex. 2013)).
3

The Department’s affidavit also states that Mother admitted injecting

methamphetamines while she was pregnant with Cade. The Department noted 

that Mother was prescribed buprenorphine for past methamphetamine use. 

Finally, the Department alleged that Mother told the caseworker that Cade “is 

not withdrawing from Methamphetamine use because people do not withdraw 

from methamphetamine use.” The NICU nurse stated that Cade was suffering 

from methamphetamine withdrawals.

On September 15, 2021, the trial court signed an Order for Protection 

of a Child in an Emergency and Notice of Hearing, granting the Department 

temporary sole managing conservatorship of Cade. 

B. Evidence at Trial 

In March 2023, the trial court held a one-day bench trial. Mother appeared 

with her attorney and announced ready for trial.

1. Caseworker Jasmine Lyons

Jasmine Lyons testified that she is the Department caseworker for this case. 

According to Lyons, Mother admitted to heroin use at the beginning of the case. She 

stated that, after Cade was removed from Mother’s custody, the Department created 

a service plan for Mother that was signed and filed with the trial court. She testified 

Mother understood the requirements under her service plan to have Cade returned to 

her care. The service plan required Mother to obtain and maintain housing, obtain 
4

and maintain a source of income, have a transportation plan, take parenting classes, 

undergo random drug testing, complete an ADAC assessment or substance abuse 

assessment, address her physical health, and “follow all general rules and 

guidelines[.]” Of the assigned tasks under the service plan, Mother did complete 

some requirements including providing a home address, which the caseworker notes 

was not verified before trial, and some proof of income. Before that time, Mother 

had provided partial address information or stated that she was living in a motel. For 

the proof of income, Mother provided an unemployment check from Massachusetts, 

but Massachusetts could not verify the information provided, and the caseworker did

not verify that Mother ever worked in Massachusetts. Mother also completed her 

psychosocial evaluation but was discharged from the recommended counseling due 

to lack of participation.

Lyons agreed that because drugs were a concern when Cade entered the 

Department’s care, it was very important for Mother to address any drug usage. 

Mother went to a residential treatment center based on the recommendation that she 

receive drug treatment. The caseworker received no complaints about Mother’s 

behavior at this treatment center until she left the center. Lyons described the 

feedback from the treatment center as “positive[,]” testifying that Mother was 

constantly improving. But Mother was allowed a home visit and informed Lyons 

that she was discharged after the home visit for “[i]ssues with staff.” After leaving 
5

the residential treatment facility, Lyons discussed with Mother about going into 

another ADAC assessment program, but Mother never did enter another program. 

Lyons testified that Mother never told her that she was attending any Narcotics 

Anonymous meetings or Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. Lyons testified that, as of 

November 2021, she requested that Mother provide the Department with two drug 

tests a month. She testified the requirement remained in place through the trial. 

However, Mother didn’t comply with the requirements, appeared intermittently, and 

completed just three months of drug testing with a positive drug-test result in 

December 2022. When informed of the December 2022 test result, Mother asked 

whether “the levels [were] lower?”

Lyons testified that visits between Mother and Cade were appropriate and that 

it was clear she loves her child. Lyons testified that, in her opinion, it would be a 

danger to Cade’s physical health or safety were he to be returned to Mother. Lyon 

also testified, based on the concerns that existed about Mother's drug use and how it 

would affect Cade, Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. 

2. Dr. Anisha Amin

Dr. Anisha Amin testified that she is a licensed psychologist. Dr. Amin 

performed a psychological evaluation on Mother which included a clinical 

interview, IQ test, and achievement testing. Dr. Amin’s explained her evaluation 

involved a complete survey of Mother’s personality and emotional functioning as it 
6

relates to Mother’s mental status. For instance, Dr. Amin testified that a true and 

false survey that Mother completed showed that Mother, according to Dr. Amin, was 

not “really forthcoming about her shortcomings or any problems that she had.” 

Based on the tests Dr. Amin gave Mother, the records she reviewed, and 

Mother’s clinical interview, Dr. Amin concluded that Mother has a “definite mood 

disorder, depression, anxiety, PTSD based on her history, drug abuse, borderline 

intellectual functioning, and an unspecified personality disorder.” Noting Mother’s 

drug use in particular, Amin explained that Mother uses drugs to “heighten” her 

mood disorders, which come in “valleys and mountains.” Amin stated that Mother 

is using the drugs to elevate her senses, either creating a “euphoric feeling” or using 

them to “bring it back down.” During the evaluation, when asked why Cade was 

removed from her care, Mother told Amin that Cade was born with drugs in his 

system and that Mother tested positive for drugs as well. Based on her evaluation, 

Amin explained that Mother has not had any long-term psychiatric care, has not been 

to a long-term sobriety residence, is not financially stable, and does not have 

structure to have a regimen, which Dr. Amin explained is important, along with

sobriety, to “rear that child appropriately.”

Dr. Amin also testified Mother failed to recognize her need for sobriety and 

failed to recognize she needed a change in her lifestyle. According to Dr. Amin,

Mother’s recognition of the problem as a problem is important, along with sobriety, 
7

in creating the structure required for a child. “In other words, you don’t recognize 

that there’s a problem with your lifestyle[,] it continues[,] [a]nd unfortunately, in this 

case a child had to be removed because of that lack of understanding.” Amin testified

that although no individual aspect of this evaluation could deter someone from being

a good parent, it is the “conglomeration of all these aspects that are concerning.” 

3. Candice Webster

Candice Webster testified that she is a licensed chemical dependency 

counselor and is employed as the lead counselor for Santa Maria Hostel. She 

explained that Santa Maria is a state funded residential treatment center for women 

with substance abuse or co-occurring disorders. Webster was one of Mother’s 

primary counselors when she entered Santa Maria in August 2022. She stated that 

most women enter the treatment program in an intensive level program, requiring 

more group hours and sessions with their primary counselor. Once a patient achieves 

stability, they move over to a supportive level care, which would require fewer group 

sessions and individual sessions. Mother entered Santa Maria in an intensive level 

of support. Webster stated that when Mother was at Santa Maria, “[s]he was doing 

great[,] ... making great progress.” She explained that Mother was acting as a mentor 

in the program and she had been able to process her substance abuse history and 

trauma within the program. Due to this progress, Mother was allowed to have a home 

pass to visit her family. This pass allowed Mother to leave for the day with specified 
8

times to leave and return to Santa Maria. Mother reported to the facility after her 

allotted time. According to Webster, Mother then chose to leave the facility. Webster 

has had no contact with Mother since she left Santa Maria. If Mother wanted to 

return to Santa Maria within twenty-four hours, and if her caseworker was

unavailable, she could have reached out to Webster or the program director at Santa 

Maria. Webster confirmed that Mother did not reach out to them after her departure.

4. Mother

Mother testified that her son was removed from her care because they both 

tested positive for drugs at his birth. Mother first denied using drugs during her 

pregnancy, but later admitted she used heroin until she found out she was pregnant.

Mother stated that when she found out she was pregnant, she contacted a doctor 

through an online service and was prescribed Suboxone for her long-term heroin 

addiction. Mother said she started using the Suboxone because she believed she 

“could possibly die[]” if she stopped taking heroin suddenly. Mother did not 

understand why Cade would have methamphetamines in his system at birth. She 

denied using methamphetamines, contending that all she took was her Suboxone,

three times a day as prescribed. She explained that she “recreationally used meth” 

before she was pregnant, but “heroin was my problem.” Mother testified she was 

surprised a drug test she took after her son was removed was positive, stating, “I 

haven’t done any meth. I don’t – I’m a heroin addict, not a meth addict.
9

According to Mother, she entered Santa Maria due to her heroin addiction. 

Mother denied arriving late to Santa Maria after her day pass or that she took a drug 

test when she finally arrived back at Santa Maria. Mother stated she left because she 

was not satisfied with the level of care she was receiving from Santa Maria. Mother 

admitted she lied when she appeared before the trial court previously and stated that 

she was doing well at Santa Maria and liked the program. Mother does not think she 

needs inpatient therapy for her drug addiction, stating that she could have used 

“outpatient and go to NA meetings and stuff like that[.]” After she left Santa Maria, 

Mother said she contacted some outpatient resources, but did not follow through

with any treatment. She testified that she did attend NA meetings in Houston but 

could not provide documentation of her attendance because it is “anonymous.” 

Mother gave various reasons as to why she missed drug tests requested by the 

Department, including lack of transportation, working out of town, psychological 

and health issues. She confirmed that after she left Santa Maria, she took a drug test 

in December 2022 and her “levels were high...[for] meth.” Mother again denied 

using methamphetamines, stating “that isn’t what was the problem.” During crossexamination, Mother maintained that she has not used drugs since she “had her son.”

When questioned as to why she posted a social media message after leaving Santa 

Maria stating, “fresh out of rehab, 90 days sober[,]” Mother testified that she did not 
10

tell the truth on Facebook, but later admitted that she relapsed on heroin the day 

before she was admitted to Santa Maria.

Mother stated that currently she is living with her grandmother in Cleveland.

Her grandmother and her extended family will be a support system for her and Cade. 

She said she is receiving $1,015 a week in unemployment benefits, explaining the 

last time she was employed was before she entered treatment at Santa Maria. Mother 

confirmed that she has fifteen weeks of unemployment left, but she is “actively” 

seeking employment for when her benefits “run out.” Mother stated that she is now 

seeing a psychiatrist and is getting prescribed medication to help with her moods, 

blood pressure and anxiety. According to Mother, she started taking the medications

while at Santa Maria, and continued to see a psychiatrist and take the medications 

after she left the facility. Mother stated that she has continued to work her service 

plan, including taking a parenting class that she completed a month before the trial. 

Mother confirmed that she attends her visitations with her child, stating she brings 

him age-appropriate toys and rarely misses visitation.

5. Foster Mother

Foster Mother is a NICU nurse who “take[s] care of drug-exposed babies.” 

She has had Cade in her care since he was two weeks old. She stated that Cade is

nineteen months old and has no medical issues. She described Cade’s demeanor as 

an infant, testifying that he “cried a lot[,] [t]here [were] times where we had long –
11

we had to comfort him quite frequently,” and that it was “pretty hard the first six 

months.” She confirmed this behavior is a withdrawal symptom of infants exposed 

to drugs in utero. She testified that if Mother’s parental rights were to be terminated, 

she and her family would want to adopt Cade.

At the conclusion of testimony, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental 

rights to Cade. Mother timely appealed.

II. Mother’s First, Second, and Third Issues

In Mother’s first, second and third issues she challenges the sufficiency of 

evidence to support termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (P). Texas 

Family Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P). 

A. Standard of Review

Under legal sufficiency review, we review “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.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 

256, 266 (Tex. 2002). We assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor 

of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard all evidence that a 

reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible. Id. If 

no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that 

must be proven is true, the evidence is legally insufficient. Id.
12

Under factual sufficiency review, we must determine whether the evidence is 

such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the 

truth of the Department’s allegations. Id. We give due consideration to evidence that 

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

consider whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not 

have resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its ruling. Id. 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, the evidence is factually insufficient. Id.

The decision to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, i.e., “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the 

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations 

sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007; In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 

79, 84 (Tex. 2005). The movant must show that the parent committed one or more 

predicate acts or omissions and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2); see also In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d at 84. We 

will affirm a judgment if any one of the grounds is supported by legally and factually 

sufficient evidence and the best interest finding is also supported by legally and 

factually sufficient evidence. In re C.A.C., Jr., 2011 WL 1744139, at *1. However, 

when, as here, a parent challenges a trial court’s findings under section 
13

161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E), we must review the sufficiency of those grounds as a matter 

of due process and due course of law. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. 

2019).

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) of the Family Code allows for termination of a 

parent’s rights if the trier of fact finds by 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). Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) allows for 

termination if the trier of fact finds by 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). “[A] parent’s use of narcotics and its effect on his or her ability 

to parent may qualify as an endangering course of conduct.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 

336, 345 (Tex. 2009) (citations omitted). The factfinder may infer from past conduct 

endangering the child’s well-being that similar conduct will recur if the child is 

returned to the parent. In re M.S., 662 S.W.3d 620, 629 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

2023, pet. denied) (quoting In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2009, no pet.)) (other citations omitted).

Termination under subsection (E) must be based on more than a single act or 

omission and requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by 
14

the parent. In re M.S., 662 S.W.3d at 629; In re M.L.L., 573 S.W.3d 353, 363-64

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.). A parent’s conduct that subjects a child’s life 

to instability and uncertainty endangers the emotional or physical well-being of a 

child. In re M.L.L., 573 S.W.3d 353 at 363. Endangerment is not limited to actions 

directed toward the child and includes the parent’s actions before the child’s birth 

and while the parent had custody of older children, including evidence of drug usage. 

In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345. Courts may consider whether a parent’s drug use 

continues after the child is removed from the parent’s care, as such conduct shows a 

voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangers a child’s wellbeing. In re H.S., No. 09-23-00002-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4191, at *21 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont, June 15, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).

B. Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E)

The trial court heard evidence about Mother’s drug use, that both she and Cade

tested positive for drugs after she gave birth, and, although Mother admitted she was 

a long-time drug user, she denied using drugs after she found out she was pregnant 

with Cade. The caseworker testified that even though Mother was ordered to go to 

drug testing at least once a month, she completed only three drug tests throughout 

the pendency of the case. Evidence also showed that about three months before trial, 

one drug test was positive for methamphetamines, although Mother disputed those 

results, saying methamphetamines is not her drug of choice. Mother maintained that 
15

she has continuously refrained from drug use since she found out she was pregnant 

with Cade. But Mother did admit that she also relapsed on heroin before she entered 

Santa Maria. There was also testimony about Mother’s psychological issues, her 

inability to acknowledge her drug issues, and her failure to effectively treat her drug 

addictions by either staying at her inpatient facility or providing the Department with 

proof of attendance at outpatient facilities. Evidence showed that Mother provided 

proof of unemployment income, but the Department could not confirm the 

information Mother provided with the State of Massachusetts. Finally, while there 

was testimony that Mother was working her service plan, and that she regularly 

visited Cade and maintained a positive relationship with her child, the trial court, as 

the factfinder, was entitled to weigh that evidence against the evidence of Mother’s

continued drug use and inability to acknowledge or seek adequate treatment for her 

drug use. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (“[E]vidence of improved conduct, 

especially of short-duration, does not conclusively negate the probative value of a 

long history of drug use and irresponsible choices.”); In re J.A.V., 632 S.W.3d 121, 

131 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.) (“testimony regarding Mother’s continued 

drug use, coupled with Child’s at-birth addiction to opiates as the result of Mother’s 

use of illegal drugs during pregnancy, would further bolster an inference that 

Mother’s drug use continued to endanger Child by affecting Mother’s ability to 

parent.”). The trial court may infer from refusals to drug test that the parent is 
16

continuing to use drugs. See In re M.S., 662 S.W.3d 620 at 629; In re H.S., 2023 

Tex. App. LEXUS 4191, at *21; In re J.H., No. 07-17-00307-CV, 2017 WL 

6459537, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 11, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting 

a parent’s failure to complete their service plan can be considered in an 

endangerment finding, including failing to provide proof of employment and safe 

and stable housing); In re R.M., No. 12-21-00099-CV, 2021 WL 4898460, at *4 

(Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 20, 2021, pet denied) (mem. op.) (“A parent’s drug use both 

before and after a child’s birth is relevant to the issue of endangerment.”); In re C.R., 

263 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“The trial court could 

reasonably infer [Mother] avoided taking the drug tests because she was using 

drugs.”).

Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial judge’s 

findings, we conclude that the trial judge could reasonably have formed a firm belief 

or conviction that Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Cade to remain 

in conditions or surroundings which endangered his physical or emotional wellbeing and engaged in conduct or knowingly placed Cade with persons who engaged 

in conduct that endangered his physical or emotional well-being. See Tex. Fam. 

Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); See also In re J.S., 584 S.W.3d 622, 635 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re M.L.L., 573 S.W.3d at 363; In re

J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345; In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d at 502; In re J.T.G., 121 
17

S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 

266.

Having concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to 

support the trial court’s findings as to subsection 161.001(b)(1)(E), we need not 

address Mother’s challenges regarding the trial court’s findings under sections 

161.001(b)(1)(P). See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 235; In re C.A.C., Jr., 2011 WL 

1744139, at *5; see also Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 We overrule Mother’s first, second, 

and third issues on appeal.

III. Conclusion

Having overruled all of Mother’s issues on appeal, we affirm the order of the 

trial court terminating her parental rights and appointing the Department as sole 

managing conservator of Cade. 

AFFRIMED.

 

 JAY WRIGHT 

 Justice

 

Submitted on July 5, 2023

Opinion Delivered September 21, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.