## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00032

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S. AND A.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 21C0139

- CCL

Before Morris s, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
When Mother ’ s child from another marriage, E.V. , was detained for breaking into a church and stealing food, he said he was hungry. E.V. explain ed that he had had food withheld from him as a form of punishment and that he had sixty days of a ninety

- day punishment remaining

. 1 E.V. reported that he was also punished by completing extra chores, doing military

style workouts, sitting on a bench for extended period s of time, and being spanked with different objects, including a stick with thorns on it, phone chargers, paint sticks, and a paddle. Further investigation by the Child Protective Services (CPS) division of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Se r vices indicated that Mother and Father ’ s other children, C.S. and A.S., witnessed E.V. being punished and that they had received the same kinds of punishment. Because of the excessive and unusual punishment of the children, they were remov ed from Mother a nd Father ’ s home. About fourteen months after the children were removed, the trial court determined that termination of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s parental rights was in the best interest s of C.S. and A.S

. and terminated Mother ’ s and Fat her ’ s parental rights to C.S. and A.S. on four grounds set out in Section 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) , subsections ( D), (E), (J), and (O) , of the Texas Family Code. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D), (E), (J), (O). On appeal, Father 2 asserts that the evidence is legally and factu a ll y insufficient to support the trial court ’ s findings on statutory grounds D, E,

1 We refer to the child ren who are the subject of this case by their initials, thei r bir th parents as Mother and Fath e r, and t hei r ot her r e latives by pseudonyms

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.8.

2 Mother’s parental rights to E.V. were terminated under a separate order of the court. Mother has no t appealed that order.3

and J and that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support its finding that termination of his parental rig hts was in the child ren ’ s best interest s . Becau s e we find that sufficient evidence supports the trial court ’ s finding under statutory ground D and its finding on the child ren ’ s best interest s , we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. Standard of Review

“ The natural right existing between parents and the ir ch il d re n is of constitutional dimensions. ” In re E.J.Z. , 547 S.W.3d 339, 343 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2018, no pet.) (quoting Holick v. Smith , 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985)). “ Indeed, parents have a f undamental right to make decisions conce rning ‘ the car e , cus to d y, and control of their children. ’ ” Id

. (quoting Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). “ Because the termination of parental rights implicates fundamental interests, a higher standard o f proof

— clear and convincing evidence

— i s required at
t r ial. ” I d

. (quoting In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Tex. 2014 ) ). “ This Court is

. . . required to

‘ engage in an exacting review of the entire record to determine if the evidence is . . . sufficient to
suppo rt the termination of parental r ights. ’ ” Id

. (q uoti ng I n re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d at 500).

“ [I]nvoluntary termination statutes are strictly construed in favor of the parent. ” Id

. (quoting
I n re S.K.A. , 236 S.W.3d 875, 900 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2007, pet. denied) (quoting Holick , 685 S.W.2d at 20)).

“ In ord er t o t e r mina te parental rights, the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent has engaged in at least one statutory gr ound for termination and that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. ” Id

. (citing T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A N N . § 1 6 1

. 001; In re
E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2012)). “ ‘ Clear and convincing evidence ’ is that ‘ degree of4

proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sough t to be establis hed. ’” I d

. ( quoting T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 101.007 ) ( citing
In re J.O.A. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2009)). “ This standard of proof necessarily affect s our review of the evidence. ” Id

.

“ In our legal sufficiency review, we consider all th e evidence in th e li gh t m ost f avorable to the findings to determine whether the fact

- finder reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the grounds f or termination were proven. ” In re L.E.S. , 471 S.W.3d 915, 920 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015 , no pet.) (citi ng I n r e J.P.B

. , 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); In re J.L.B. , 349 S.W.3d 836, 846 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2011, no pet.)). “ We assume the trial court, acting as fact

- finder, resolved disputed facts in favor of the finding, if a reasonable fact

- fin de r c ould do so, and disregarded evidence that the fact

- finder could ha ve reasonably disbelieved or the credibility of which reasonably could be doubted. ” Id

. (citing In re
J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d at 573).

“ In our review of factual suffic iency, we give d ue c on s i d eration to evidence the trial court could have reasonably found to be cl ear and convincing. ” Id

. (citing In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). “ We consider only that evidence the fact

- finder reasonably coul d have found to be c le a r and convinc ing and determine ‘ whether the evidence is such that a fact[

- ]finder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the

. . . allegations. ’” Id

. (quoting In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d at 108 ). “ If, in light of the ent ire

re c o r d, the disputed evidence t hat a reasonable fact [

- ] finder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a fact [

- ] finder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or5

convicti on, then the evidence i s fact ually insufficie nt. ” I d

. (quoting In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256,
264 , 266 (Tex. 2002) ). “‘ [ I ] n making this determination, ’ we undertake ‘ an exacting review of the entire record with a healthy regard for the constitutional interests at stake. ’” I d

. (quotin g In

re A.B. , 43 7 S. W. 3 d at 503). “ We also recognize that the trial court, as the fact

- finder, is the sole arbiter of a witness ’ demeanor and credibility, and it may believe all, part, or none of a witness ’ testimony. ” In re A. M. , No. 06

- 18

- 0001 2

- CV, 201 8 WL 3077784, at *3 (T e x. App.

— Texarkana June 22, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (cit ing In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d at 109).

“ Despite the profound constitutional interests at stake in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, ‘ the rights of natural parents a re not absolute; pro te c ti on of t he child is paramount. ’” In re L.E.S. , 471 S.W.3d at 920 (quot ing In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2003) )

. “ A child ’ s emotional and physical interests must not be sacrificed merely to preserve parental rights. ” Id

. ( quoting In re C.A. J. , 4 59 S.W.3d 175, 1 79 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015, no pet.). Sufficient Eviden ce Supported the Statutory Ground D Finding Father asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial
court ’ s findings under g rounds D and E. “ On ly on e predicate fi nding under Section 161.001[b](1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. ” Id

. at 923 (quoting In re O.R.F. , 417 S.W.3d 24, 37 (Tex. App.

— Texarka na 2 0 13 , pet. denied ) )

. Even so, when the trial court ’ s findings under grounds D or E are challenged on appeal, due process demands that we review the evidence supporting the findings under at least one of those grounds when they are cha llenged on appeal

.6

Se e I n re N.G

. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 23 7 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam) ( “ We hold that due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights under section 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D) or ( E ) of the Family Code. ” ). This is becaus e termination of parental rights under these g rounds may implicate the parent ’ s parental rights to other children. Id

. at 234 ; see T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( M) (providing as

a ground for termination o f pa r en ta l rights that the par ent “ had his or her parent

- child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent ’ s conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) ” ).

“ Termination under Groun d D is proper when there is cl e ar and convincing eviden ce that a 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. ’” In re D.R. , 631 S.W.3d 826, 8 33 (Tex. App.

— Texa rka na 20 2 1, no pet.) (qu oting T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D) )

. “ Under [ S ection 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D)], we must examine the time before the child[] ’ s removal to determine whether the environment it self posed a danger to the child ’ s phys ical or emotional wel l

- b ei ng . ” In re L.C

. , 145 S.W.3d 790, 795 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2004, no pet.). “ A child is endangered when the environment creates a potential for danger that the parent is aware of, but disregards. ” In re N.B

. , No. 06

- 12

- 0000 7

- CV, 2013 WL 1605457, a t

* 9 ( Te x. App.

— Texarkana May 8, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). “ [S]ubsection (D) permits termination [of parental rights] based on a single act or omission [by the parent]. ” In re L.C. , 145 S.W .3d at 797; see In re A.B

. , 125 S.W.3d 7 69, 77 6 (Tex. App.

— Texar kan a 2 00 3, pet. denied). “ [A]busive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a child ’ s home can7

produce an environment that endangers the physical or emotional well

- being of a chi ld. ” In re
B.E.T

. , No. 06

- 14

- 00069

- CV, 2 015 WL 495303, at *5 (Te x. Ap p . — Te xarkana Feb. 5, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting In re B. R

. , 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 1991, writ denied)). In this case, the evidence showed that Stevie Stanley, an alternative response caseworker with CPS , receiv ed the report of E .V

. ’ s b reak

- in at the church to steal food. E.V. told the police of the various punishments. Stanley testified that , when she spoke with E .V. , he was very guarded, quiet, and withdrawn , even though he h ad a normal I

. Q

. when it was teste d. She opined that he ha d endured so much trauma that he exhibited selective mutism. She also said that E.V. was very thin and that , after eating three meals a day in detention for a week, he weighed only 103 pounds and had a body mass index of 4.43

. 3
Forensic intervie ws w e r e also co nducted of C.S. and A.S., who were ages nine and six at the time. C.S. and A.S. corroborated E.V. ’ s statement s as to punishment and said that they saw him being hit with a paddle on differ ent parts of his body an d saw his hands bleeding and hi s b od y bruis ed as a result

. T hey also said that they had been hit with paddles, sticks , and paint sticks an d that , when E

. V

. got in trouble , they got punished too , s o if E.V. did not get a meal , neither did they . C.S. a nd A.S. also reported that there wa s a l ock on t he refrigerator that came off only after E.V. went to juv enile detention. In addition, they said that , if they got a meal while
E.V. was there , it was usually cereal

. They also talk ed about military

- style w or kouts

— burpees,

3 E.V. was five feet , seven inches tall and was fourteen years old

.8

crabwalks , and p us h u p s

— that the y would have to do for hours at a time and that E.V. would have to do from morning unti l night

. In his Children ’ s Adv o cacy Center ( CAC ) interview , C.S. said that , one time , he was spanked with a paddl e and it hit his “ pee w ie ner ” and he had b l o o d in his urine . Wh en he told Mother , she said he should have bent over

. He also said that , on the day of the interview , he had already had to do 100 pushups b ecause he had been sit ting on the couch and M other said he had thrown somet hing wh e n he was s uppos ed to b e sitting still

. C.S. and A.S. both talked about being spanked with sticks with thorns in them and a paddle and about each having mar ks and bruises in different ar eas. They both witnessed E .V. b eing physically punished and his hand b leeding. A.S. also witnessed E.V. being hit with the paddle on his arm repeatedly until Mother did not feel like hitting anymore , because he would not say, “ I will not steal. ”
Stan ley went to E.V. ’ s house wh ere she met with Mother, who c arried a gun o n her hip.
M other t old her that sh e had tried different punishments with E.V., and nothing worked , so she began withholding meals from him. She described E.V. as a problem child and t old Stanley that he stole p aper clips and binder clips and p layed in t h e water in th e bat hroom for long perio ds of time , caus ing their water bill to increase. When she spoke with Mother and Father about the allegation s of physical abuse of E.V. , they bot h said that they tried differ en t punishments on E.V. and that he would n ot learn. St anley test ified that ther e was no indication of remorse from either parent and that they did not accept any responsibility for any injuries to the children. Stanley also testified that the boys wer e n ot in public school and had no t been th e r e since May 2 020

. The bo ys said that they were in homeschool but had not started for the year as of the9

time of Stanley ’ s investigation in January 2021. Mother said that she had home school curriculum , b ut she di d not show it to Stanley. Stanl ey testif

i e d that , based on h er in vestigation and interviews , she believed that C.S. and A.S. were placed in a situation that was a danger to their physical and emotional well

- being. As a result , C.S. and A.S. were removed fr om the home because o f physica l and emo t i onal abuse. She a lso t estified that , w hen CPS went to remove the boys, Mo ther state d that she felt like E.V. had not been punished enough. Demetris Simington, the CPS caseworker in t his cas e , testified regarding t he parents ’ compliance with the ir famil y service plan. She testi fied that , alth ough Mother and Father had completed most of the services under the plan, they had attended only two individual counseling session s. Under the p lan, they were required to at te nd twelve sessions, more if req uired by t he counselor. Si mingto n also testifie d that she provide d the boys with services and talk ed with them, their placement s, counselors, and caregivers. She noted that , at th e family conference , Mother

a nd Father attributed the case to E.V. ’ s bad behavior r u bbing off on the t wo younge r boys and added that Mother and Father could not say anything positive about E.V. She also testified that she had never heard Mother or Father express any remorse for the w ay they had treated the boys.
W hen Simington fi rst t a lked with E. V

. , he had to t hink about how to respond to questions. According to Simington, E.V. eventually told jokes and was very talkative , and s he
h ad never felt threatened by E.V. or worried that he w as going to hurt any one. She also tes tified that E .V. was very prote ctiv e of his brothe rs. Both C.S. and A.S. were receiving counseling, and10

Simington received reports from their counselor. She said that the boys constantly talk ed about the ir parents being me an, discuss ed the punishment , and want ed to k now why they treat ed the m the way they did

. She also noted that , when the boys came into care, they were not on the proper grade level for their age . Although A.S. had to be hel d back , C.S. advanced to his proper grade level after being removed , and E. V

. jumped from seven th

- grade to ninth

- grade level

. Si mington recommended termination of Mot her ’ s and Father ’ s parental rights based on Mothe r and Father not complet ing their services and from information gained from time she had spent with C.S. and A.S

. S he testified that C.S. and A.S. fear ed going back hom e with Mother and Father. They were adam ant that things would not change an d that they did not fee l safe at Mother and Father ’ s home

. Suzanne Tomlin, a licensed professional counselor , ha d counseled C .S. and A.S. two
t ime s a month since June

. She testified that they talked e xt ensively about the food situation , the lock on the refrigerator , often not hav ing three meals a day , and sometimes having from none to two meals in a day

. They both witnessed E

. V. t aking the brun t of the physical abuse . As a result, T om lin opined, C.S. and A.S. had a lot o f fear

. T hey repeatedly an d ad amantly told her that they did not want to go home because of that fear. Tomlin also opined that the boys came from a traumat i c background a nd th at witnessing E.V. being punished w as emotionally damaging because they

wou ld not know when it w ou ld happen t o them

. Tomlin also testified that both C.S. and A.S. had attention defici t/hyperactivity disor der ( ADHD ) , that C.S. ’ s behavio r at school was good , but that A.S. ne ed ed a lot of prom pt s and11

reminders to stay on ta sk. She testifie d that the AD HD b rought anxiety and that witnessing
E.V. ’ s punishment increased the a nxiety and put their emotional well

- being at risk. She also
note d t hat C.S. and A .S. b oth told her that they received th e sa me punishments as E.V. , with a lot of “ whippings ” with different objects, denial of food, and not going to school . C. S. told her abo ut being hit in his private parts , which caused blood in his uri n e . Tomlin opin ed th at , if C.S. and A .S. were reuni ted with Mother and Father , t he children would experience regression with anxiety and ph ysical aggression. She also testi fied that she
h ad never heard C.S. or A.S. say that they loved their parents, miss e d them, or want ed to s pend time with them.
Mo ther testified that the boys had been in public school until COVID

- 19 hit and th at she had kept them home when the schools opened again because she disagreed with wearing a mask, social distancing, and the va c c i ne. She main taine d tha t she was go ing to homeschool them, but gave them an extra break and had not started when they were r emoved. She also testified regard ing E.V. ’ s hist ory of bad behavior : not talking, throwing tantrums, pushing and hitting other c h ildren , and st ea lin g. She said that sh e had tried standing him in a corner, writing sentences, corporal punishmen t, paddling, and whipping with a bel t. She admitt ed hitting C.S. in his privates, but said it was because he refused to bend over and turne d as she was swi ng ing t he belt. She a lso said that the same thing had happened to E.V. , also with a belt

. Mother also admitted to using military

- style exercises as punishment , but maintained it was mainly pushups for C.S. and A.S. She said th o se were no t as severe as f or E. V. and that the

n umb er of pushups depended on the se verity of what they did, but she admitted that she had12

required them to be don e all day. She als o admitted to p addling all three boys with paddles, paint sticks , and belts. Mother a l s o testified th at sh e had told the i n vestigator that she had withheld meals from the boys on a couple of occasion s. Mother also mainta ined that there was always food in the pantry and plenty of cereal for
E.V. to eat, so she did not believe that E.V. bro k e into the chur ch be cause he was hun g ry. She agreed that she and Father had rules o f condu ct and discipline in their house and believe d that the boys resent ed those rul es. Mother als o testified that Father was a truck driver and that he was usually gone s ix weeks at a time. Howe ve r, she ta lked with him every day, and he kn ew ev erything that went on in the house. Father testified that he believed he had “ s crewed up ” one time in his dis cipline of E.V. He stated that he lost his temper as a result of E

. V. ’ s running away , bre aking in to his neig hbor ’ s house , and vandalizing it

. 4 He spanked E.V. with a paddle so hard that he bruised his butt ocks to where it would hurt him for at least two or t hree days and up to a week. He attributed his actions
to a cu l minatio n of years of ha ving problem s with E.V. He also testified that he felt the corporal punishment and other punishments that had be en testi fied to were appropriate and th at they did
not creat e harm. He maintained that his preferred discipline was to talk ab o ut t he pro blem but tha t , if talking di d not work, he would try timeout s and finally “ all in all ” ending with corporal punishment.

4 Father said that E .V. a dm i tted to the vandal ism bec ause he was silent when asked i f he had done it.13

F ather also mai ntained that E.V. br oke into the ch urch because he did not like his parents ’ rules, not because he wa s hungry

. H e said that they had a refrigerator and freezer full of healthy food and that E.V. had access to crackers, canned goods, and tu na. He stated that E.V. broke int o his neighbor ’ s house in December before the boys were removed and that he knew it

was E.V

. becaus e o f E.V

. ’ s ro utines and retice nce . He agreed with Mother ’ s testimony and stated that E.V. ’ s punishments were strong becau se they feared for their lives and others ’ lives because E.V. was stealing their car keys

. He also testified that , a l though h e was on t he ro a d for six to eight wee ks at a time , he maintained contact by telephone qu ite often and sometimes was on the teleph one with someone at the house for four to seven h ours. Joey Elliott was the court appointed special advocate for C.S. and A.S

. since Feb r uary 2021. She testified t hat she visited Mother and Father in their home early in the case. They only wanted to talk about how awful E.V. was a nd how it was all his fault. At t he end of the v isit, Father brought her attention to sev e ral gun s that he h a d, s h owed them to her, and told her why he carried them

. Mother then displayed her gun and said that she always carried it because they believed in pr otection. Elliott left shortly af ter that and did not return to their house

. She v i sited w i th Mother and F ather several times at the cou rthouse after th e initial visit

. Each time, Mother and Fath er continue d to tell her that they saw nothing wrong with how they discip lined the boy s . Father also told her that he had been raised that wa y . Elli o tt testif i ed th at she had not heard an y remorse or regret from Mother or Father throughout the case and that the y never said anything positive about E.V.14

Elliott also testified that s he had visited with C.S. and A.S. at least once a month s ince sh e wa s as s igned to t hem. They told her at each visit that they did not wa nt to see , visit , or talk to their parents and that they did not want to go home. When she asked them what they wanted
t o tell the judge, C.S. said he wan ted to know if his pare nts w e re stil l mean, and A.S. wanted to know why his parents were mean for so l ong. Regarding the changes she had seen in the children, Elliott testified that both C.S

. and
A.S. had nightmares about getting hurt when they first came into care , but that tho s e had be c ome less freq u ent

. Also, at first , they did not communicate very much, but they eventually came to communicate better and speak more clearly. She also testified that both C.S. and A.S . were quite behind in school, but that both ult i mately m ade it on the A

- B honor rol l with g ood con duct

aw ards . Also, at first , they did not know how to interact with other people and honored no boundaries , but they gre w to have good manners and knew how to sit quiet ly in school . She also testifi e d that t hey were hap py, ta ll, and health y , wer e eati ng healthy meals, ha d lots of friends, and were involved in church and in the community. Elliott also testified that C.S. and A.S. had talked about see ing what happened to E.V. and that this ha d affect e d t hem e motionally s o that th ey did not want t o go h ome . She said that their counselor was concerned that , with E.V. out of the picture , if they were sent back home , either C.S. or A.S. would become the new focus for punishment

. Elliott opined that the

e nvironm e n t that C.S. and A.S. wer e in be for e r emoval wa s emotionally damaging and that their physical well

- being was in danger . Her greatest concern with returning the boys was that Mo ther and Father did not finish their counseling and exhibited n o remor s e.15

Father argues that , si n ce the Depar tm ent di d not show t hat C.S. and A.S. lived in squalor, that Father used illegal drugs , or that he allowed dangerous conditions around them in the home, there was no evidence that their environm ent endangered C .S. ’ s a n d A.S. ’ s p hysical or emot i onal well

- bein g or t hat Father ’ s conduct was the root of such an environment. While we agree that such conditions can create an environment that may endanger the physical or emotional well

being of a child , they are by n o means t he only on es that can cre a te such an env ironme nt. As we ha ve previously noted, “ a busive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a child ’ s home can produce an environment tha t endangers the physical or emotional well

- bein g of a child. ” In re B

. E.T

. , 2015 WL 495303 , at * 5 (q uoting In re B.R

. , 822 S.W .2 d at 106). The evidence in this case showed that , before removal , C.S. and A.S. had witnessed Mother ’ s and Father ’ s brutal tre atment of E.V. , both by extreme corporal punish ment and the wi t hholdin g of meals for extended per iod s of ti me , and th at they ha d suffered similar punishments themselves

. This conduct produced an environment that caused C.S. and A.S. to fear their parents to the point that , even a year after removal , the y feared bein g return e d to Mother ’ s and Father ’ s care and ha d no des ire to hav e any contact with either parent. Although the evidence indicated that Mother

was the primary person responsible for those punishments and the resulting endangering environment, the evidence also sh o wed that Fat her was aware of her disci pl inary method s,

a greed with them, and also employed them himself

. Further, although Mother and Fath er disputed the statements made by E.V. , C.S., and A.S. regarding the severity of the punishmen t inflicted o n them, t he trial cou rt, as f act

- finder, could ha ve rea sonabl y di scounted their testimony in light of E.V. ’ s physical condition and the emotional condition of all of the boys at their16

rem oval. Under this record , we find that the trial court reaso nably could ha v e forme d a firm bel ief or c onviction that F at her knowi ngly place d or knowingly allowed C.S. and A.S to re main in conditions or surroundings that endanger ed the ir physical or emotio nal well

- being

. Therefore, we find that legally and factually sufficient e v idence s upports the trial co urt ’ s finding
t erm inating Father ’ s p arental rights under statutory ground D. 5 We overrule this issue. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Best

- Interest F inding Father also challenges the legal and factual sufficienc y of the evid e nce sup p orting the
t rial cou rt ’ s best

- inter est finding

. “ T here is a strong presumption t hat keeping a child with a parent is in the child ’ s best interest. ” In re J.A.S

. , Jr. , No . 13

- 12

- 00612

- CV, 2013 WL 782692, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Chris ti Feb. 28, 2 0 13, pet

. denied) (me m. op.) (c iting In re R .R. , 209
S. W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). “ Termination ‘ can never be justified without the most solid and substantial reasons

. ’” In re N.L.D. , 412 S.W.3d 810, 822 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana
201 3, no pet.) ( q uoting W iley v. Spra tlan , 5 43 S.W.2d 349, 3 52 ( Tex. 19 76)).
In determining the best interests of the child, courts consider the following Holley factors: (1) the desires of the child, (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now an d in the futu r e, (3) t he emotional and ph ys ical danger to th e child now a nd in the future, (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, (5) the programs available to assist th ese individuals, (6) the plans for the child by these individua ls, (7) the s t ability of the home, (8) th e acts or omissi ons of the paren t tha t may indicate the existing parent

- child relationship is not a proper one, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omiss ions of the parent.

5 Becaus e o nly one statutory ground finding is necessary to support a judgment of termination and our f inding that s ufficient evidence supports the trial c ourt’s finding u n der sta t utory grou nd D satisf ies the requirements of due process and due course of law, we need not address Father’s challenges of the trial court’s findings under statutory grounds E and J. See In r e L.E.S

. , 471 S.W.3d at 92 3; In re N.G

. , 577 S.W.3d at 2 37

.17

Id. at 81 9 (citing Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 3 7 1

– 72 (T e x. 1976)); s ee In r e E.N.C. , 384
S. W.3d 796, 8 07 (T ex. 2 012); see also T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 263.307(b). There is no requirement that all of these facto rs be proven in or der to terminate parental rights. See In re
C.H. , 89 S.W.3 d 17, 2 7 (Tex. 20 0 2)

. Fu r ther, we may consid er evidence used to support the
groun ds for termination of parental rights in the best

- interest analysis. Id

. at 28. Although C.S. and A.S. did not t estify , several witnesses testi fied regarding their statements and feelings a bout be i ng returned to thei r p arents , as se t out above

. Th is ev idence strongly supports a finding tha t C.S. and A.S. did not desire to return to Father ’ s care . Even though Father had completed parenting classes , Father and Mother h ad completed only two c o unselin g session s . B ased o n th e evidence s et out abov e , it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that there had been no, and would be no, change in the conditions of
Fat her ’ s home that had led to the removal of the boys

. C onsequently, it was rea s onable f or the trial court to c onclude that Father wou ld no t be able to meet the boys ’ emotional needs, that returning the boys to Father would present an

e motional and physical d anger to the boys, that Father was lacking in his pa r ental abilities , and th a t his l a ck of remorse for, and his lack of understandi ng of , the emotional and physical consequences of his and Mother ’ s punishments of E.V. , C.S., and A.S. indicated that the par ent

child relationship was not a proper one. We find that this evidence str o ngly su p ports a findin g th at the second, th ird, fourth , and eigh th Holley factors favor ed termination. We find that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the tr ial court ’ s best

interest findings and overrule this issue.18

For the reasons state d , we af f irm the trial cour t ’ s judgment.

Josh R. M o rriss III Chief Justice Date Submitted : August 8, 2022 Date Decided: August 16 , 2022