Affirmed and Me morandum Opinion filed October 14 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14
- 00382
- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M
. S. L. AND L. S.L., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 06 370J



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant S.M.L. (the Father) appeals the decree terminating his parental rights to two daughters (the Children). He raises a single issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination is in th e Children’s best interest. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 12, 2012 , the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed suit for protection of the Children, M.S.L.2

(Michelle), born in 2006, and L.S.L. (Lisa), born in 2009

. 1 The Department had received a referral alleging negligent supervision and physical abuse of the Children. In addition to problems with the Mother’s mental health , it was alleged the Father had substance abuse issues and he used excessive discipline that l eft bruises on Michelle. The referral also alleged the Children had witnessed domestic violence in the home. A fter an emergency hearing on November 12, 2012, the court named the Department temporary sole managing conservator of the Children and they were p laced in foster care. A full adversary hearing was held November 20, 2012. The court found sufficient evidence to support the removal. See Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201 (b) ( listing the required findings for removal and protection of the child). The Father

was present at the adversary hearing, and he was ordered to undergo drug testing

. The test results were positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and hydrocodone. At the status hearing on January 8, 2013, the court found that the Father had been provided a fam ily service plan and he understood its requirements. He also understood his parental rights could be restricted or terminated if he did not show he could provide the Children with a safe environment. The tasks in the Father’s service plan included that he submit to random drug tests, obtain and maintain suitable housing, parti cipate in individual counseling including a psychological evaluation and any recommendations therefrom, parenting education classes, domestic violence classes, and attend all court hea rings and visitations with his children. An additional temporary order entered the same day added that the Father was required to participate in a substance abuse program, complete a drug and

1 To protect the identities of the minors, we have not used the actual names of the Children or parents

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. T he Mother relinquished her parental rights and has not appealed

.3

alcohol assessment and any recommendations made by the assessmen t, remain drug free, refrain from criminal activity, maintain stable employment, and complete all services outlined in his family service plan. The Father was ordered to take a drug test at the conclusion of the hearing, but he left before the test was
per formed. The first permanency hearing was held April 9, 2013. Both the Department’s caseworker and the Father testified. The Department’s caseworker assigned to this case, Valencia Green, testified that the Children’s current placement met their physical an d emotional needs and it was in their best interest to remain in that placement. The court ordered the Father to undergo urinalysis and hair follicle tests that day. The tests were positive for Vicodin and alcohol.
Trial to the court was held on multiple , non
- consecutive days. Specifically,
t rial commenced on November 19, 2013 , and was reset to March 18, 2014 for drug
tests on the Father and the Mother and for the Child Advocates representative to obtain additional information for her home studies on potent ial placements

. The trial was reset again before concluding on April 22, 2014

. The Father testified on both November 19 and April 22. On April 22, Bruce Jefferies, of the National Screening Center, provided expert testimony about the Father’s positive drug tests. The Department ’s caseworker also testified about the Children’s status and the Father’s interaction with the Department during the pe ndency of the case. Finally,
t he Child Advocates representative , who was appointed guardian ad litem for the Childr en, testified about her observations and recommendations

. At the close of trial, the court granted the Department’s request to terminate the Father’s parental rights to the Children. The trial court signed a decree of termination on May 12, 2014, and t he judgment recited that the Father’s parental rights were terminated based on findings that termination is in the Children’s best4

interest and that the Father committed acts establishing the predicate termination grounds set out in subsections E, O, and P o f Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1). See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 161.001(1)(E), (O), & (P); 161.001(2). Th e Department was appointed sole managing conservator of the Children. The Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARDS OF R EVIEW Involuntary termination of parental rights is a serious matter implicating fundamental constitutional rights. Holick v. Smith , 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985) ; In re D.R.A ., 374 S.W.3d 528, 531 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)

. Although p arental rights are of constitutional magnitude, they are not absolute. In the Interest of C.H ., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26 (Tex. 2002) (“Just as it is imperative for courts to recognize the constitutional underpinnings of the parent

child relationship, it is also es sential that emotional and physical interests of the child not be sacrificed merely to preserve that right.”). Due to the severity and permanency of the termination of parental rights , the burden of proof is heightened to the clear and convincing evidence standard. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001; In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 265

– 66 (Tex. 2002)

. “Clear and convincing evidence” means “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007; accord In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d at 264. This heightened burden of proof results in a heightened standard of review. In re C.M.C ., 273 S.W.3d 862, 873 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Parental rights can be terminated upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the parent has committed an act prohibited by s ection 161.001(1) of the Family Code; and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex.5

Fam. Code § 161.001(1), (2) ; In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex

. 2009). O nly one predicate finding under section 161.001 is necessary to support a judgment of termination when the re is also a finding t hat termination is in the child’s best interest. In re A.V

., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a parental termination case, we must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d at 344; In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We assume that the fact finder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable fact finder could do so, and we disregar d all evidence that a reasonable fact finder could have disbelieved. In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d at 244; In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 266. In reviewing termination findings for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we consider and weigh all of the evidence inclu ding disputed or conflicting evidence

. In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d at 345

. “ If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable fact finder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a fact finder could not r easonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient. ” I d . W e give due deference to the fact finder’ s findings and we cannot substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. In re H.R.M ., 209 S.W.3d 105, 10 8 (Tex. 2006). The fact finder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses

. Id. at 109. We are not t o “second

- guess the trial court’ s resolution of a factual dispute by relying on evidence that is either disputed, or that t he court could easily have rejected as not credible.” In re L.M.I ., 119 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. 2003) (explaining that in a termination case, an appellate court should not reweigh disputed evidence or evi dence that depends on a witness’s credibility)

.6 III. U NCHALLENGED PREDICATE FINDINGS The Father has not challenged the three predicate grounds for termination found by the trial court

. As relevant to these proceedings, s ection 161.001(1) provides termination is warranted if the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence, in addition to the best interest finding, that the parent has: (E) 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; (O) failed to co mply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Se rvices for not less than nine months as a result of the child ’ s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child ; (P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangere d the health or safety of the child, and: (i) failed to complete a court

- ordered substance abuse treatment program; or (ii) after completion of a court

- ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance

. Tex. Fam. Code § 1 61.001(1)(E), (O) , & (P). Unchallenged findings of fact are binding unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding. See In re E.C.R ., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013). There is evidence in the record t o support each of the findings. As such, we treat them as conclusively established.

IV. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN Notwithstanding three st atutory bases for termination, the Father asserts termination of his parental rights is not in the Children’s best interest. There is a7

strong presumption that the best interest of the child is served by keeping the child with the natural parent. In re R.R ., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). T he prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environm ent is also presumed to be in the child ’ s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.307 (a). Courts may consider the following nonexclusive factors in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the best interest finding , including : the desires of th e ch ild ; the present and future physical and e motional needs of the child ; the present and future emotional a nd physical danger to the child ; the parental abilities of the persons seeking custody ; t he programs available to assist those persons seeking custody in promoting the best interest of the child ; the plans for the child by the indivi duals or agency seeking custody ; the stability of the home or proposed placement ; acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing parent

- child relatio nship is not appropriate ; and any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976). This list is not exhaustive, and evidence is not required on all of the factors to support a finding terminating a parent’s rights. Id.; In re D.R.A ., 374 S.W.3d at 533. In addition, t he Family Code sets out factors to consider in evaluating the parent’ s willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe environment , including : the child ’ s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; the magnitude, frequency, and circumstances of the harm to the child; whether there is a history of abusive or assaultive conduct by the child’s family; whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child’s family; the willi ngness and ability of th e child’ s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services and to cooperate with and f acilitate an appropriate agency’ s close supervision; the willingness and ability of the child ’ s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes w ithin8

a reasonable period of time; and whether the child’ s family demonstrates adequate parenting skills, including providing the child with minimally adequate health and nutritional care, a safe physical home environment, an understanding of the child ’ s

n eeds and capabilities ; and the adequacy of the available support system

. Tex. Fam. Code § 263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116

. We review the entir e record to determine the c hild’ s best interest. In re E. C.R. , 402 S.W.3d at 250

. T he same evidence of a cts or omissions under section 161.001(1) may be probative of t he best interest of the child

. In re C

. H

. , 89 S.W.3d
at 28. Endange ring Conduct , Including Drug Use , Criminal History, and Domestic Abuse By failing to challenge the predicate finding on endan germent , the Father has acknowledged that he endangered the Children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(E). Evidence supporting an unchallenged endangerment finding can be probative of the best interest finding

. See In re K.C ., 219 S.W.3d 924, 928 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2007, no pet.)

. A parent’ s past conduct is probative of his future

co nduct when evaluating the child’ s best interest. See In re O.N.H ., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2013, no pet.). E ndangering conduct may include the parent’s actions, i ncluding evidence of drug use, before the Children’s births. See In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d at 345

. Drug Use Our record contains evidence supporting the endangerment finding. First, the record contains ample evidence that the Father had not fully overcome a serious drug problem during the pendency of the case

. The Father’s three drug test results from November 2012 to November 2013 were admitted in evidence. The Father admitted he had a drug problem when the Children were removed from the home.9

At that tim e, the Father’s drug test was positive for methamphetamines. At trial, Bruce Jefferies of the National Screening Center testified that the level of methamphetamines from the Father’s first test in 2012 indicated “somebody that definitely was doing meth qui te often,” and “at this reading, this is somebody that would be doing it every day.” In addition to the positive test at the beginning of the case, the Father was ordered to submit to another drug test at the status hearing in January of 2013, but he left before being tested. A letter from National Screening Center dated January 10, 2013, two days after the status hearing, was admitted at trial. The letter states that the Father was ordered to take a drug screen, “but walked out before we could collect a sa mple . . . . This is considered a REFUSAL/POSITIVE TEST.”
Jefferies testified that o n April 9, 2013 , the Father tested positive for Vicodin at levels consistent with his taking a prescri bed amount of the drug, but negative for illegal substances. The Fath er test ed positive for alcohol , however, at levels indicating he drank “a significant amount of alcohol.” On the first day of trial, November 19, 2013, the Father’s drug test was positive for methamphetamine s
. Jefferies testified the methamphetamine s in th e Father’s system were at lower levels from the 2012 test

. Jefferies testified that the 2013 positive test could not be a result of the earlier positive test the year before. Jefferies confirmed that the results showed that the Father had used methamphetam ines again. In comparing the two results, Jefferies stated, “Well, it was horrible when I first saw it. And now it’s come down to maybe a two

- time use versus everyday use.” According to the Father, he had completed a court

- ordered substance abuse program b efore trial. The Father the n admitted he continued to abuse methamphetamine after completing the substance abuse program

. The Father also acknowledged he used crack cocaine once or twice a month10

for a year while the family lived in Florida. He admitted at trial that the family violence he committed since the birth of his children occurred “during a period, where, admittedly, [he] had a drug problem.” The Father also acknowledged that the Children were in the Department’s care because of his drug use. A par ent’s drug use supports a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re M.R ., 243 S.W.3d 807, 821 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). The factfinder can give “great weight” to the “significant factor” of drug

- related conduct. I

n re K.C ., 219 S.W.3d at 927 ; see also In re J.N.H ., No. 02

– 11

– 00075

– CV, 2011 WL 5607614, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov.17, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering a parent’ s criminal and drug histories in affirming a trial court’ s decision that terminati on was in the best interest of a child); In re K.W ., No. 02

– 07

– 00458

– CV, 2008 WL 2639037, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that clear and convincing evidence exist ed that termination of a father’ s parental rig hts was i n a child’ s best interest when, among other factors, the father had a pattern of criminal conduct and drug abuse)

. We acknowledge the Father’s April, 2014 testimony that he had been clean and sober for a year, and he did not drink or smoke. However, we mu st consider this evidence in the context of the other e vidence admitted in this trial. The Father’s drug test from November of 2013, at the beginning of trial, was positive for methamphetamine. He also tested positive for a significant amount of alcohol in his system in April of 2013, seven months before trial. A photograph of the Father from a Facebook page was admitted in evidence. The post, dated June 18, 2013, at 4: 48 a.m., stated next to the photograph: “[The Father] Drunk as Cooter Brown Sancho.” In a ddition, the Father was incarcerated from approximately Octobe r 30, 2013 to mid

- March, 2014. A s the factfinder, the trial court was entitled to disbelieve the Father’s testimony that he had been “clean” for almost a year and he did not drink or smoke. See In re H.R.M ., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108

– 09 (Tex. 2006)11

(stating the fact finder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses ). Criminal History
The Father’s criminal records were admitted at trial. These records show a series of c rimes both before and after the Children’s births. In November of 2000, the Father pled guilty to committ ing the crime of delivering cocaine, and was sentenced to two years in prison on April 30, 2002 , after failing to comply with the requirements of commu nity supervision. In addition, the Department’s records reflect that the Father acknowledged he had been arrested and imprisoned for the offense of family violence in Florida on April 17, 2006. At trial, the Father acknowledged the Mother was pregnant with Michelle at the time of the assault. The Father also admitted at trial that he was char ged with battery in 2004 and driving while intoxicated in 2009. In March of 2013, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Father assaulted the Mother by dragging her from his truck, causing a concussion and cuts and bruises. An order signed March 18, 2013, for the Mother’s emergency protection was admitted at trial. The Father pled guilty on August 29, 2014, and was sentenced to four days in county jail, with cred it for two days served

. At first, the Father denied that he had been arrested during these proceedings before his incarceration at the beginning of trial , but he later recalled that he spent a night in jail after a fight with the Mother

. 2
In an unrelated e pisode during the pendency of these proceedings, the Father admitted he was arrest ed for aggravated assault following a fight during which he

2 Based on this and other outlined inconsistencies in the Father’s testimony, the factfinder was entitled to discredit the Father’s self

- serving statements about his complete reform. See In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d at 109. We may not disturb the fact finder’s credibility determinations. See In re L.M.I ., 119 S.W.3d at 712.12

stabbed a man in the chest or shoulder shortly before trial began

. The Father had been released from jail on a PR bond by the end of the trial of this matter , but the criminal case remained pending. This evidence of continued criminal conduct, including several periods of incarceration, supports the trial court’s best

- interest determination. See In re D.M ., 58 S.W.3d 801, 814 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 200 1, no pet.) (evidence of parent’ s “inability to maintain a lifestyle free from arrests and incarcerations” is relevant to best interest determination); In re M.D.S ., 1 S.W.3d 190, 199

– 200 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (incarceration standing alone does not amount to endangering conduct, but it is relevant to the child’ s need for current and future stability and permanence).
Domestic violence
In addition to the Father’s criminal behavior , evidence of the Father’s domes tic violence supports a finding of endangerment to the ph ysical or emotional well

- being o f the Child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 263.307(b)(7). A parent’ s abusive or endangering conduct may be considered in a best interest analysis even when it occurred before t he child’ s bi rth

. In re G.M.G ., ___ S.W.3d ____ , 2014 WL 2826363, at *11 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 19, 2014, no pet.). The trial court reasonably could have considered that the Father’s repeated acts of violence would continue in the future. See Walker v. Tex. Dep’t Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied); In re D.J.H ., 381 S.W.3d 606, 613 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (recognizing that a fact finder may infer from past endangering conduct that similar conduct will recur if the child is returned to the parent). There was evidence that the Children witnessed the fights between the parents. The Father acknowledged that his confrontations with the Mother “in front13

of the Children” was “a form of abuse.” Abusive or violent conduct can produce a home environment that endangers a child’s well

- being. In re J.I.T.P ., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). In addition to Michelle’s emotional problems, t he caseworke r testified Lisa had been troubled by nightmares about the domestic violence that she witnessed between her parents.
This evidence of the F ather’s drug use and criminal history, including domestic abuse , supports the court’s best interest finding that the Father poses a physical and emotional danger to the Children

. Stability and Compliance with Services The failure to comply with a service plan can support the trial court’s best

interest finding. In re E.C.R. , 402 S.W.3d at 249. The Father had completed many of his court

- ordered services , including individual counseling, parenting classes, and domestic violence counseling. The Father testified he went “above and beyond” the required counseling and undertook additional counseling. The Father’s p artial , or even substantial , complia nce with service requirements set out in a court order is not enough to avoid a termination finding. See In re M.C.G ., 329 S.W.3d 674, 675

– 76 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); In re T.T ., 228 S.W.3d 312, 319 (Tex

. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). Moreover, the Father did not challenge the predicate finding that he failed to comply with the court order to participate in services , and we are bound by the unchallenged finding

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.00 1(1)(O). Evidence of a parent’ s unstable lif estyle can support a fact finder’ s conclusion t hat termination is in the child’ s best interest. In re S.B ., 207 S.W.3d 877, 887 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) . Lack of stability, including a stable home, s upports a finding that the parent is unable to provide for a child’s emotional and p hysical needs. See In re G.M.G ., ___ S.W.3d at ___ , 2014 WL14

2826363 at *12 ; see also Doyle v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs ., 16 S.W.3d 390, 398 (Tex. Ap p.

— El Paso 2000, pet. denied) (holding that a parent’s failure to provide a stable home and provide for a child’s needs contribute s to a finding that termi nation is in the child ’s best interest )

. T he Department’s caseworker testified that the Father did not es tablish stable employment or housing, as required by the court. The Father told the caseworker he was living at a lodge near New Braunfels, where he was employed. A letter from a representative of Gruene Outpost River Lodge was admitted in evidence. The le tter, dated July 21, 2013, stated the Father worked six hours per week there and received “a room in trade.” When the case worker visited, no one knew the Father. The guardian ad litem also described her attempted visit to the Father’s residence . She testif ied the Father told her she could not visit on a weekend because he could not afford to pay the rent required on the weekends. Near the conclusion of the trial, the Father testified he had obtained appropriate housing, but he had not notified the Departmen t of the change in address until shortly before his testimony. There had been no opportunity for the Department to evaluate his residence. The factfinder may determine that a parent’s changes shortly before trial are too late to have an impact on the best interest determination. See In re Z.C. , 280 S.W.3d 470, 476 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (explaining that a father’s “efforts to improve his ability to effectively p arent on the eve of trial [were] not enough to overcome a decade of poor parent ing and neglect” in evaluating the best interest of the children ). The Father’s employment history was also not stable. When , in 2013, the caseworker contacted the Father’s employer, she was told the Father no longer worked there. In 2014, t he Father testi fied he was employed as a carpenter making $22 per hour, which he felt was adequate to support the Children. He provided a15

reference letter sworn to on April 21, 2014, from the owner of Commercial Custom Services in San Antonio. The letter stated that at t hat time , the Father was employed by his company working on restoration projects with the San Antonio Housing Authority. The letter stated the Father is “an excellent carpenter and has proven to be an asset to our team.” The Father had been required to sub mit to drug testing to obtain the job and was subject to random drug testing at any time. The letter further stated that the Father was motivated “to be the best he can be” so he can regain custody of his girls. In the owner’s opinion, the Father’s interac tion with the owner’s daughter showed he could be a “great” father. The trial court was not required to consider this evidence in a vac u u m; the Father’s employment as a carpenter on restoration projects was for no more than 30 days, as he was incarcerated prior to that time, and the letter was dated the day before the final day of trial, April 22, 2014. In considering the best interest of the child, “ evidence of a recent turn

around in behavior by the parent does not totally offset evidence of a pattern of instability an d harmful behavior in the past. ” Smith v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs ., 160 S.W.3d 673, 681 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, no pet.)

. The factfinder could reasonably have concluded the Father’s lack of stability support ed the finding that termination is in the Children’s best interest. See L.Z. v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , No. 03

– 12

– 00113

– CV, 2012 WL 3629435, at *10

– 11 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( holding the best interest finding was supporte d where the father had a history of instability, domestic violence, and criminal activity, and Department plann ed to have child’ s foster family adopt him). Children’s Desires, Needs, and Proposed Placement A child’s love for her natural parent is an impor tant consideration in the best16

interest determination. In re W.S.M ., 107 S.W.3d 772, 773 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2003, no pet.)

. Even where a child is attached to a parent, however, the child’s desire to be returned to the parent will not be dispositive of th e best interest analysis if the parent has engaged in conduct dangerous to the child ’ s well

- being. B.B. v. Tex

. Dep ’ t of Family & Protective Servs

. , ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 4737541 (Tex. App.

— El Paso Sept. 23, 2014, no. pet. h.). In this case, b o th Childre n told the caseworker they wanted to remain with their foster family. The Father acknowledged the girls also told him they wanted to stay in their foster home. A child’s need for permanence through the establishment of a “stable, permanent home” has someti mes been recognized the paramount consideration in a best interest determination. See In re K.C ., 219 S.W.3d at 931

. Therefore, e vidence about placement plans , including a potential adoption , are relevant to the best interest determination

. See C.H ., 89 S. W.3d at 28. The Children’s guardian ad litem provided testimony supporting the finding that termination is in the Children’s best interest based on over 150 hours she spent working on the case , including interview ing the Children , family members , and fost er parents

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 107.002(e) (setting out the guardian ad litem’s duty to testify regarding her recommendations relating to the best interests of the child and the reasons for the recommendations). In her opinion, termination is in the Child ren’s best interest. She stated that the C hildren were currently in a safe and stable environment where they were thriving and doing very well. They

were also doing well in school. She said the children were bonded to the foster family, and expressed their desire to stay there. The foster parents want to adopt the girls. The foster parents are employed, have their own home, and the girls each have their own room. A photograph of the foster parents with the Children in17

which they appeared happy and affection ate was admitted at trial. The caseworker described the Children’s progress since they had been in foster care. When Michelle first came into care, her mental state was unstable and she had to be hospitalized. She was diagnosed with “intermittent explosiv e disorder.” She experienced rages and engaged in violent behaviors at times, some of which caused her to harm herself. She received treatment and therapy during the pendency of these proceedings. There was evidence the foster family worked hard to see tha t Michelle received appropriate treatment. Michelle learned to control her problems with anger and behave at school. At the time of trial, both girls were doing well. The Department also presented evidence that the foster parents plan to adopt the Childre n. A Child Advocates representative testified the foster parents had gone to “extraordinary” lengths helping Michelle with her therapy and medication. They had taken Michelle to several different psychiatrists to help her overcome her anger issues. Both gi rls told the caseworker , the guardian ad litem, and their Father that they wanted to remain with their foster family. The factfinder could reasonably have concluded that this evidence supports its best interest determination. The Father’s Parenting, Suppo rt System, and Plans for the Children
The Father testified that the Children and he had bonded. He visited them regularly until he was incarcerated, even when he had to drive from the San Antonio area. He brought lunch and clothes or toys for the girls whe n he visited

. He testified they all cried when he left his visits with the Children. He had cared for them before their removal. He testified he made approximately $4,000 per month, enough to buy a house and care for his Children. The Father testified he h ad investigated places for Michelle to continue her therapy if she was returned to18

him. Over the course of the trial, t he Fa ther testified his parents live near him and would help him care for the Children. He testified his mother could care for the Child ren at her six

- bedroom ranch house while he was incarcerated. The guardian ad litem testified , however, that when she contacted the grandmother in June or July, 2013, to consider a possible placement of the Children, the grandmother stated she was no longe r interested. During the final day of trial in April, 2014, the Father testified that his parents were both willing to help with family support and specifically babysitting or a $100 loan if needed . The Grandmother was available to confirm this April, 2014 testimony but the Court accepted Father’s testimony outlined above

. The Father provided a letter from a neighbor dated April 23, 2013. The letter stated, “From my observation, [the Father] is a loving and protective father. For quite some time, he has not been able to work full time so that he could be active in the child care

— taking and picking up his girls from school. The girls are very fond of their dad and their relationship is a stellar one. It is my opinion that the girls should be placed with the ir father.”
E vidence about previous CPS investigatio ns is relevant to the Father’s parenting abilities. See In re J.H ., 2

- 09

- 367

- CV, 2010 WL 3618712 , at *8 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 16, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). Records from Florida were admitted in ev idence, and they showed that the family had a history with Children’s Protective Services ( CPS ). The Father also acknowledged the family’s CPS history at trial. The records showed that t he Children were temporarily placed in foster care in Florida. The Chi ldren’s guardian ad litem testified at trial that the Mother admitted the family fled from Florida to avoid the CPS case there. During a
court

- ordered evaluation of Michelle after she was removed from her parents in19

these proceedings , Michelle revealed she had been sexually assaulted when the family lived in Florida. The record reflects the Mother was aware of the assault but the parents never sought help for Michelle.
Other records before the trial court show that the Mother frequently attacked the Father while the children were in close proximit y, once with a fireplace poker. As discussed more fully above, Michelle was treated for emotional and behavior problems during the pendency of these proceedings

. The Father testified that he considered taking the c hildren away but decided not to do so. The factfinder could reasonably have concluded that the limited evidence in the Father’s favor is not significant or is of such a short duration or recent occurrence that it does not outweigh the other evidence of a longstanding pattern supporting its best interest finding.
V. CONCLUSION In sum, t he record contains sufficient evidence to support the best interest finding based on the Father’s pattern of drug use and criminal behavior, even while these proceedings we re pending, despite the rehabilitative services the Department provided to him. Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that a fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of the Fathe r ’s parental rights i s in the C hild ren ’s best interest. See J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 265

– 66. In light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable fact finder could not have credited in f avor of the best

interest finding is not so significant that a fact finder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or con viction that termination of the Father’ s parental rights i s in the C hild ren ’ s best interest

. See In re H.R.M

. , 209 S.W.3d at 108

. After considering the relevant factors under the appro priate standards of review, we hold the evidence is legally and factually suffic ient to support the trial court ’ s finding20

that termination of the parent

- child relationship is in the C hild ren ’s best interest

. Therefore, w e overrule the Father’s sole issue. Having overruled the Father’s issue, we order the trial court’s judgment affirmed.

/s/ Sharon McCally Justice

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.