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

NO. 03
- 22
- 00501
- CV

G. C. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 317940 , THE HONORABLE DALLAS SIMS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

G.C. (Father) appeals from the trial court ’ s decree terminating his rights to his son Glen following a bench trial. 1 The trial court found that termination of Father ’ s parental rights was in Glen ’ s best inter est a nd that Father knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Glen to remain in condit ions or surroundings that endangered his physical or emotional well

- being, engaged in conduct or knowingly placed Glen with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered his phy s ical or emotional well

- being, constructively abandoned Glen after he had bee n in the temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services ( D epartment ) for not less than six months, and failed to comply with the provi si o n s of a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return of Glen

. See Tex.
Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) , (b)(2)

. On appeal, Father challenges the legal and

1 To protect the child ’ s privacy, we will refer to him by a pseudonym and wil l refer to family members by their rela tionships to him

. S ee Tex. F am . Code § 109.002(d) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.8

. Although M other ’ s parental rights were also terminated, she is not a part y to this appeal

.2

factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial co u r t ’ s best

- interest determination

. We will affirm the trial court ’ s termination decree.

BAC KGROUND This case involves the termination of Father ’ s rights to his son Glen, who was five years old at the time of the termination. However, the case initiall y s tarted after the Department became concern ed about Mother ’ s parenting and her extensive history with the Department. Starting in 2014, t he Department initiated several investigations of Mother for allegations of drug use and ot her criminal activity. In 20 15, the Department in vestigated allegations that Mother was using methampheta mines and other drugs and l earne d that Mother left two of her other childr en in the custody of Father even though h e was not the f ather of the children. During that inv estigat i on , Father tested positive fo r methamphetamines and admitted that he was using other illegal drugs while caring for the children. Ultim ately, M other ’ s p arental rights to those children were terminated.

Th e current case was ini t iated in June 2020 after t he Department received a

co mplaint that Mother was negl igently supervising Glen an d was using metha mphetamines again

. Later, the Department received a complaint alleging that Mother had committed fraud,
sto len motor vehicles, an d posted videos of her dr i v in g around in the stolen ve hicles with Glen

. Investigating police officers confirmed that some of the vehicles at Mother ’ s residence were stolen and observed Mother driving Glen in stolen vehicles. After M other was arrest ed, the Depart ment tried to fin d a p lacement for Glen and le arned that Father was incarcerated.

Although Father was in custody, t he Department created a family service plan for Father setting out requirements with which he mu st comply to obtain the return of Glen with3

many of the re quir e me nts to be completed a f ter Father was released . Under the plan, Father was required to pe r form several tasks including the following: submit to a psychological evaluation ; participate in individual counseling ; undergo a drug assessment by Outreach, Scre e ni ng, Assessment, and Re ferral ( OSAR ) ; submit to drug testing ; obtain full

- time employment ; provide and maintain a safe home ; not participate in any criminal activities; demonstrate an ability to meet Glen ’ s basi c needs and ensure his safety; partic ipa te in supervised visits wi th Glen; and complete therap eutic parenting classes

.

The Department initially placed Glen in foster care and then placed him with fictive ki n that Father recommended . Father was r eleased in June 2021. Although Father was direc te d to have supervised v isits with Glen , he also had unauthorized and unscheduled in

- person visits with Glen at th e fictive kin ’ s home

. For that reason , the Department again placed Glen in fo ste r care where the child remained until trial.

A f ter his rel ea se, F a ther en rolled in individual therapy , which he completed in December 2021. Fa ther attended classes covering p rotective parenting . However, Father was re arrest ed in February 2022 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and in March 2022 for

un aut hori ze d use of a motor vehicle , and he remained in custody through the trial in this case

. According to the probable

- cause statement for the Fe bruar y 2022 arrest, Father was involved in a

ve hicle collision while driving a U

- Haul and left the scen e. Fat her adm i tted to the investigating officer that he was looking for his girlfriend and a man and started following the man after seeing him driving , but he told the officer that he accidentally crashed into the man ’ s vehicle. However, the man stated that Fat her pur sued him at a high rate of speed and intentionally

c rashed into his car causing major damage. A witness saw the U

- Haul fleein g the scene. According to the probable

- cause statement for the March 2022 arrest, the police had been4

notified tha t Father com mit t ed aggravated robbery and stole a truck. A police officer discovered the truck in an apartment complex parking lot and waited to see if anyone tried to use the truck. After the officer observed Father get into the truck and drive off, the officer ini ti at ed a traffic stop, identified Father as the driver, and discovered that Father possessed the owner ’ s keys to the truck

. During the t rial in July 2022, the following ex hibits were admitted into evidence: Father ’ s family service plan, the removal af fid avit , and paperwork for Father ’ s two arrests in 2022. At the start of trial , Mother conceded that termination of her parent al rights was in Glen ’ s best interest and that she failed to comply with t he terms of a court order setting out the

re quirements for her to obtain the return of Glen , and she waived her right to appeal.

The Department ’ s caseworker testified that she had been assigned to the case a few months before the trial , th at he r testimony was based on notes from her predecessors and affi davi ts , and that she had not yet met with Father. The caseworker discussed Father ’ s recent arrests and discussed how he was in custody a t the time of the trial . Although the caseworker ackn owledged that Father had been discharged from individual therapy , att end ed p rotective parenting classes, and attended visits wi th Glen, she explained that Father ’ s continuing criminal conduct shows tha t he ha d not sufficiently changed his behavior and tha t he did not comply with all of his service plan ’ s requi rements

. A lso, the c a seworker related that Father had not made any child

- support payments that had been reported to the Department, ha d not shown that he could provide for Glen ’ s basi c needs and safety, ha d not participated in visitation since being in

cu stody, an d ha d not ob tained full

- time emplo yment. Further, the caseworker explained that although she did not know how long Father ’ s punishm ents might last if he were found guilty of the charged of

fenses, Fa ther could not provide a safe and stable home fo r Glen at t he t ime of trial5

because Father was in custody

. The caseworker related that Father would show up for

unann ounced visi ts when Glen was placed with fictive kin and that during one of those visits, Father brought a gun. When describing those unan nounced v is its, the c aseworker stated that Father “ wasn ’ t showing the Department . . . if he was sober ” and “ w as putting [Glen] . . . in harm ’ s way. ” Regarding the Department ’ s plans for Glen, the caseworker testified that the Department had performe d a home study for Glen ’ s aunt ( Aunt ) who was F ather ’ s sister and live d out of st ate , that the home study was approved, that A unt want ed to adopt Glen, and that th e Departmen t intend ed to help facilitate A unt ’ s obtaining a license to adopt Glen. Further , the casework er st ated tha t A unt ha d been having daily contact with Glen , that the visits between
A unt and Glen ha d been going wel l, and that Glen was excited to ha ve the visits with A unt and
to meet his cousins . The caseworker explained that it was in G len ’ s best int erest for Fat her ’ s parental rights to be terminated and for Glen to be placed with A u nt

.

Next, A unt testified that she want ed to adopt Glen, that s he wanted to provide Glen with stability by adopting him, that her preference was to be abl e to adopt Glen rathe r than

s ervi ng as a custod ian, that she and her husband were both employed, and that she could ensure that Glen ha d a stable home if she were al lowed to adopt him. Regarding Father, A unt explained that he ha d a criminal history and ha d been incarcera ted a t least thre e times and that she was concerned he could not stay out of trou ble. Although Aunt stated that she would al low Glen to have contact with Father if that were legally permitted and that contact between them might be benefici al , she also tes tifie d that s he w orri ed that allowing Father access to Glen might delay Glen ’ s feeling safe and stable in her care , that she wo uld only be in favor of Father having6

contact if he did not cause Glen mental distress, and that she would protec t Glen from Fath er if that be came n eces sary .

When the Department rested, Father testified that he was no t aware that h e was Glen ’ s father u ntil halfway through his previous time in custody, that he ha d never lived with Mother and Glen , that he took ste ps to address the abuse and neg lect in Mother ’ s home whe n he learned of it during this case, and that he was initially complying with his s ervice plan after he was released from jail

. Regarding his services , he stated that he attended individual therapy a nd was discharged, atte nded par enti ng class es, filled out paperwork for a psychological evaluation, submitted to multiple drug test s , did no t use drugs, had visits with Glen, and maintained contact with Glen by phone. Father related that he sent child sup port to o ne of the plac ements. Addi tionally, Father testified that when he was first released from custody after this case began , he went t o live at a recovery faci lity called the Re c enter in Houston , Te xas, for five weeks ; did

some services through the R e c ent er, including atten ding Alc ohol ics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, anger mana gement classes, and counseling ; and worked while in Hou s ton to pay fo r those services.

Although Father stated that he wanted to keep his parental rights and have a relat ionship with Glen, he also testifi ed that he wanted Glen to b e placed with Au nt , that it wa s in Glen ’ s best interest to stay with Aunt , and that he wanted to pay Aunt child support when he

was able

. Father also agreed that he did not comply with the requi rement that he not en gage in crimi na l activity

. Father explained that he applied for a job in A ustin be fore being arrested again , but he re lated that he did not end up getting that job and that he slept on a relative ’ s couch after leaving the Re c enter. I n add ition, Father ad mitte d that h e “ manipulated the situation ” with the fictive kin placement t o have unauthorized in

- person visits with Gl en but denied brin g ing a7

gun to one of those visits. Regarding the new charges against him, Father stated that no t rials ha d been held y et an d that h e did not know when he would be released.

Following Father ’ s testimony, Glen ’ s guardian ad litem stated that it was in Glen ’ s best interest to have Father ’ s parental rights terminated because termination would give Glen the best chan c e at havi ng a permanen t home and would allow Au nt to adopt him. The guardian ad litem also explained that even if Father ’ s “ l ife settles down ” and Aunt at that point allows Father to have some type of relationship with Glen, Aunt should be f ully in control of what type and amo unt of contact , if any, is warranted.

After considerin g the evidence, the trial court determined that termination of Father ’ s parental rights was in Glen ’ s best interest and that Father knowingly place d or allo wed Glen to remain in condition s or su rround ings endangering his physical or emotional well

- being, engaged in conduct or knowingly placed Glen with individuals who engaged in conduct endangering his physical or emotional well

- being, constructively abandoned Glen, and failed to comply wi th th e provis ions of a court o rder setting out the actions necess ary for him to ob tain the
return of Glen. According ly, the trial court terminated Father ’ s parental rights.

Father appeals the trial court ’ s termination decree.

S TANDARD OF REVIEW AND GOV ERNIN G LAW On ap peal, Father challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporti ng the trial cour t ’ s best

- interest determination. To terminate an individual ’ s parental rights, the Department must prove by clear a nd convincing evidence th at th e pare nt engaged in conduct constituting at least one statutory ground for termina tion in the Family Code a nd that terminati on is in the child ’ s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b) ; In re S.M.R. ,8

434 S.W.3d 576, 580 (T ex. 2014)

. “ ‘Clear and c onvin cing e vi dence’ means the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind o f the trier of fact a fi rm belief or conv iction

as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007

. When reviewing a termination o rder, appel la te courts defer to the factfinder, who, “having full opportunity to observe w itness testimony first

- hand, is the sol e arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses.” In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014)

.

In legal

- suf

ficie ncy re vi ews, appellate courts consider undisputed evidence contrary to the finding at issue but assume that the factfinder r esolved disputed facts in favor of the finding. In re A.C. , 560 S.W.3d 624, 630

- 31 (Tex. 2018)

. The evidence is legally suffi cient “if, vi ewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the fact

- finding and consid ering undisputed contr ary evidence, a r easonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true.” Id. at 631

. In contrast, for factual

- suffi ciency r eviews, appellate courts weigh the disputed evidence contrary to the finding ag ainst the evidence s upporting the fin ding and ascertain “whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have

reso lved it in favor of the f indin g.” I

d. “Evidence is factually insufficient if, in light of the entire record, the disp uted evidence a re asonable factfind er could not have credited in favor of a finding is so significant that the factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or c onvic tion t ha t the finding was true.” Id.

The best

- interest determin ation “is child centered and focuses on the child ’ s well

being, safe ty, and development.” Id. It is guided by multiple non

- exclusive factors, including the fol l owing: (1) the child ’ s wi she s; (2) the child ’ s physical and emotional needs; (3) the physical and emotional danger to the child n ow and in the fut ure; (4) the parental abilities of the people seeking custody; (5) programs available to help those people; ( 6 ) the plans for the9

child by t hose peo ple or the agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the parent ’ s act s or omissions indicating that the parent

- child relationship is improper; and (9) any excuse for the parent ’ s acts or omissions. Holle y v . Adams , 5 44 S.W.2d 367, 371

- 72 (Tex. 1976)

. The Department need not prove all the factors, and the absence of eviden ce for some of the factors does not preclude a finding that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. Spur ck v. Texas Dep ’ t of Fam. & Pr otective Servs. , 396 S.W.3d 205, 222 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2013, no pet.)

. “While no one factor is con trolling, the ana lysis of a single factor may be adequate in a particular situation to support a finding that termination is in th e child ’ s best interes t.” Id. Evi dence pertaining to a statutory ground for termination may also be probative of the best

- in terest determination

. Se e In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002)

.

“ When considering the child ’ s best interest, we may take into account that a parent is u nabl e to provide adequate care for a child, lacks parenting skil ls, or exercises poor judgment. ” In re M.C. , 482 S.W.3d 6 75, 688 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2016, pet. denied)

.

“ Parental drug abuse, which reflects poor judgment, is also a factor that may be cons ide red

w hen determining the child ’ s best interest. ” Id. “ Further, the amount of contact between the parent and child an d the parent ’ s failure to pro vide financial and emotional support, continuing criminal history, and pa st performance as a parent a re al l r eleva nt in determining the child ’ s best interest. ” Id.

DISCUSSION

On appeal , Father argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial
court ’ s best

- interest determination . As support for this argument, Father notes that there was n o
tes t imony r egarding Glen ’ s desires for p lacement , that there was no evidence that Glen did not10

want to see Fat her, and tha t the evidence presented showed that Father loved Glen

. Relatedly, Father emphasiz es that he had re gu lar contact with Glen and atte nded i n - perso n and virtual visi ts with Glen

. Next, Father asserts that there was no evidence presented establishing that Gl en had any needs th at Father could not address. Furthe r, Father emphasizes that he was successfully discharged fro m individual ther apy, which in clude d counseling on protective parenting. Additionally, Father referred to his testimony stating that he had no pla ns to d isrupt Glen ’ s placement with Aunt and that he wanted to pay Aunt child support

. Moreover, Fathe r note s that Aunt testi fied that she woul d not mind if Fa ther retained his parental rights and had a r elationship with Glen and that she would protect Glen from Father if that proved to be necessary. Finally, Father references the fact that Aunt had n ever met Glen in person and had not yet obtained a license authorizing her to adopt him

.

However, evidence ot her than that on w hich Father relies was prese nted during the trial

. A lthough Glen did not testify regarding his desires and although there was no testimony est ablishing that he h a d su fficient maturity to express his preference, see In re D.W. , 445 S.W.3d 913, 926 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2014, pet. denied) ( determining that desire

- of

- child factor w as neutral where children did not testify at trial, wher e some child ren were too young
t o expres s preference, and where there was no evidence showing sufficient maturity of ol der children to e xpress living pref erence) , we do note that the caseworker testified that Aunt had daily contact with Gle n, th at Glen was excited to talk with Aunt, and t hat Gle n wa s excited to
meet h is cousins.

Regarding Glen ’ s emotional and physical needs and the emotional and physica l danger to him , his basi c needs include food, clothing, shelter, reg ula r medical and dental care,

a safe and nurtur ing home , and recre a tional a ctivities and friendships appropriate to his age.11

See In re L.S. , No. 02

- 16

- 00197

- CV, 2016 WL 4699199, at *6 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although Father testified that he paid chi ld support to one of the placements an d would l ike to pay Aunt child support, the Department caseworker explained that there was no record of any child support payments being made by Father. Moreover , Father testified that his attempt to find employment i n Austin was unsu c c essful, and he pro v ided

no te sti mony setting out how he would b e able to provide a safe and nurturing home for Glen

or otherwise contribute to paying for his basic needs. Cf. In re J.L.G. , No. 06

- 16

- 00087

- CV, 2017 WL 1290895, at * 6 (Tex . App.

— Texarkana A pr. 6, 2017, no pet

. ) (mem. op. ) (noting in best

- int erest analysis that parent discussed only va gue plans to obtain employment and did not have plan to provide child with safe and stable home)

. Additionally, the removal affidavit stated that in a prio r ca se involvin g some o f Mother ’ s other children, Mother plac ed her children in the custody of Father who tested positive for methamphetamines and admit ted to using other illegal drugs while caring for those childr en. See In re M.R. , 243 S.W .3d 807, 821 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 20 0 7, no pe t.) (noting that parental drug u se is relevant to best

- interest determination)

.

Along those same lin es, Father admitted that he was in custody when Glen was removed from Mother ’ s care, did not comply with the r equirement that he not commit any addi tio nal c rimes whil e the case was ongoing, was in custody and ha d two charges pending against him, and did not kn ow when he would be released. See In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 2 8 ( stating that parent ’ s criminal history i s r e l e v a n t t o best

- i nterest f i n d i n g ) ; In re J. G. , No. 02

- 20

- 00038

- CV, 2020 WL 3410503, at *7 (Tex. A pp.

— Fort Worth May 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that “ [ t]he trial court was free to measure Father ’ s potential future conduct in providing for th e emotional and ph ysical needs of the chi ldren based on Father ’ s past conduct ” ) ; M.R . v. Texas Dep ’ t of Fam. & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 17

- 00715

- CV, 2018 WL 1023899, at *312

(Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 23, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (emphasizing that “ [a] parent ’ s current and futu re incarceration is rel evant to his ability to meet the child ’ s present and future physical and emotional needs, and the parent ’ s incarceration at t he time of trial ” renders his future uncertain); In re R.S. , No. 02

- 15

- 00137

- CV, 2015 WL 5 770530, at *6 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth Oc t. 1, 20 05, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( commenting that “ [w] hen parents are incarcerated, they are absent from the child’s daily life a nd are unable to provide support” and that “ when parents repeatedly engage in criminal con duct that subjects them to the possibi lit y of jail time such acts

can have a negative impact on a child ’ s physical and emotional well

- being ” )

. Father ’ s criminal hist ory before and during this case, including a charge following remova l for the offense of

a ggravated assault with a deadly weapon , “ revea l that the existing relationship between Father and [Glen] is not a proper parent

- child relationship. ” See In re J.G. , 2020 WL 3410503, at *9 ; see also S.S. v. Texas Dep ’ t of Fam . & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 2 2

- 00123

- CV, 2022 W L 2500337, at * 7 n .6 (T ex. A pp.

— Austin July 7, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting in best

- interest analysis that parent w as current ly awaiting trial )

.

Alt hough F ather and the Department caseworker both testified that Father completed many of the services re quired of him, the c aseworke r explained that Father ’ s continu ing criminal conduct shows that he had not chang ed his behavior and that Father had
not demo nstrated the ability t o provide for Glen ’ s basic needs and safety, had not obta ined full

- time employme nt, and could not cu rrently a ct in Glen ’ s best interest

. Cf. In re J.L.G. , 2017 WL 1290895, at *5 (emphasizing that parent “ remai ns[] incarcerated ” “ [b]e cause of her actions, both before and during the pendency of this case ” and rea soning that trial court c ould have

reas onab ly place d more weight on her conduct that le d to her continued incarceration rather than her clai m that she had changed and “ conclude [ d] that [the parent] would not be able to meet the13

ph ysical and emotional needs of her children ” )

. Fu rther, although Fath er denie d brin g i ng a gun, the Department caseworker testified that Father went to the home of the fictive ki n placement to have un announced a nd unsupervised visits with Glen and brought a gun with him during one o f thos e visits. See In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d at 503 (noting that appellate courts defer to factfinder who is sole arbiter o f credibility of witnesses). Moreover, Father admitted that he arranged to have unauthori zed visits with Glen when he was plac ed wit h fictive kin.

On the ot her hand , Aunt expla ine d tha t sh e want ed to adopt Glen and move him into her home with her children and that she and her husband were bo th employed. The Dep artmen t caseworker testified that Aunt ’ s home study was approved and tha t it was in Glen ’ s best int erest fo r him to be placed w ith her and for Father ’ s ri ghts to be terminated

. Glen ’ s guardian ad litem also stated that it was in Gl en ’ s best in terest for F ather ’ s parental rights to be terminated and for Glen to be adopted by A unt and that termination of Father ’ s rights pro vide d th e be st option for Glen to be placed in a permanent home

. See In re T.D.C. , 91 S.W.3d 865, 873 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth 2002, pet. d enied) (noting that “ [t] he need for permanence is a compelling considera tion in determining the chi ld ’ s present and fut ure phys ical and emotional needs ” ), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.N.Z. , 421 S.W.3d 899, 909 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2014, pet. den ied)

. Similarly, Father testified that it wa s in G len ’ s best interest for him to be placed wit h A unt and that he wanted Glen placed with Aunt

. Cf. In re J.L.G. , 2017 WL 1290895, at * 6 ( commenting in best

- int erest analysis that parent agreed that child should remain with placement while she was in jail )

.

Regarding future plans of the individuals seek ing custo dy of Glen, the Department caseworker explained that the Department intended to help facilitate Glen ’ s adoption by Aunt. S imilar ly, although Au nt said that she would allow Father to have limited con tact with14

Glen if that was o rdered by the trial court and t hat it might be beneficial provided that it did
not cause Glen any distress, she also stated her p reference that she be a l lowed to adopt Glen in order to ensure that he has a safe home. S ee In re S.J.R.

- Z. , 537 S. W.3d 677 , 6 9 5 (Tex. App.

— San An tonio 201 7 , pet. denied) (observing that “establishing a stable, permanent home for a child is a compelling interest for the governm ent”) (quotation omitted) ; see also D.O. v. Texas Dep ’ t of Human Servs. , 851 S.W.2d 351, 358 (Tex. App.

— Austin 1993, no writ ) (observ in g that best

- interest determination may consider w hether termination would allow adoption to occur), disapproved on other grounds by In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 267 & n.39 (Tex. 2002)

.

Although h e testified that he wanted to retain his parental rights an d to have a relationship with Glen, Father failed to provide any further description of his plans for Glen.
See In re J. G. , 20 20 WL 3410503, at *9 ( stating that “ [t]he trial court was entitled to compare Father ’ s lack of plans to the Department ’ s plan in c onsidering the best interests of the children ” );
In re J.D. , 436 S.W.3d 105, 119

- 20 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014 , no pet. ) ( noting that

“ [t]he fact finder may compare the contrasting plans for a child by the parent and the Department and c onsider w hether the plans and expectations of each party are reali stic or weak and ill

- defined ”)

. Viewing all the evidence in t he light most favorable to the trial court ’ s decree, we conclude that a reas onable fact finder could have form ed a firm belief or convictio n that
t ermination of Father ’ s parental rights is in Glen ’ s best interest

. After weighing the disputed evidence that is contrary to the best

- interest finding against the evidence supporting the best

interest finding, we conclu de that the disputed evidence is not so significant that a reasonable fact finder could not have resolved it in favor of the finding. Accordingly, after consi dering the relevant factors under the appropriate standards of re view, we conclude that the eviden ce is15

legally and fa ctually s u fficien t to support the trial court ’ s finding that termination of the parent

child relationship is in Glen ’ s best interest.

For these reasons, we overrule Father ’ s issue on appeal.

CONCL USION Having overruled Father ’ s issue on appeal, we affir m the tri al court ’ s termination decree.

__________________________________________ Th omas J. Baker , Justice Before Chief Justi ce Byrne, Justices B aker and Kelly Affirmed Filed: November 30, 2022