1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09
- 15
- 00171
- C V



### ____________________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.

______________________________________________________________ __________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13
- 10
- 11650 CV

____________________________________________________________ ____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After a bench trial, the trial court modified a prior order affectin g the parent

child relationship and entered an order terminating the parental right s of R.H. ( Mother or appellant ) 1 to her seven - year - old son, J.H. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West 2014). In two appellate issues, Mother challenges (1) the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of her parental rights

1 We identify the minor children by initials to protect their identities. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Other members of the family are identified by either initials or based upon their relationship to the children. After the suit was filed, the Father executed an affidavit voluntarily relinquishing his parental rights to J.H. Father is not a party to this appeal. We reference Father in the opinion only as necessary to place matters in context for our appellate review of Mother’s appeal.2 under section 161.001 (1) (O) of the Texas Family Code and (2) the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination of her parental rights is in J.H.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(1)(O), (2). We hold the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s order, and we affirm the judgment.
P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND The 2010 Removal In 2010, when J.H. was two years old, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the De partment) filed an Original Petition for Protection of a Child, for Conservatorship, and for Termination in [a] Suit Affecting the Parent

Child Relationship (the petition) . In the petition , the D epartment requested that the

tr i a l court appoint the Departme nt as J.H.’s temporary sole managing conservator because there was “a continuing the Department alleged danger to the physical health or safety” of J.H. if he was not removed and that the “continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare[.]” The Department also requested that the trial court appoint the Department as J.H.’s permanent sole managing conservator if J.H. could not be reunified with either parent or permanently placed with a relative or other suitable person for placement , and that Mother ’s parental rights be terminated if reunification cannot be achieved . The petition alleged tha t the appointment of either Mother or Father as permanent3 managing conservator would not be in J.H.’s best interest because it “ would

s ignificantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.” The petition was supported by an attached sworn and notarized affidavit of a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker , and the affidavit described the circumstances necessitating remo val. According to the affidavit in support of emergency removal, CPS received a report alleging neglectful supervision of one - year - old J.H. in April of 2009 , allegi ng that Mother had left her diaper bag in the lobby while at a clinic, and when the staff looked in the bag to determine the owner, the staff found marijuana and discovered the bag b elonged to Mother. The affidavit stated that Mother denied using drugs or having knowledge of how the marijuana got into her diaper bag, and two weeks later Mother tested negative for illicit substances on a drug screen. The affidavit stated that CPS received another report in May of 2009 , alleging that J.H. was examined in an emergency room for a crushed foot, that he had been to the emergency room several times t hat year, and that while Mother was in the hospital for sickle cell anemia, J.H. would wander the halls unsupervised. A CPS investigator questioned Mother about the injury to J.H.’ s foot and Mother stated that a car ran over his foot while Mother and J.H. went to check the mail. According to the affidavit, during an assessment in 2009, Mother stated4 she has sickle cell anemia and has suffered two strokes, Mother also reported that Mother and her siblings were removed from their mother by CPS due to medical neglect when they were children , and Mother would “ not discu ss her medical needs and bec[a]me[] defensive if the subject [wa] s brought up.” CPS received another report in August of 2009 , alleging Mother physical ly abuse d J.H. , and that during an argument between Mother and one of her sister s , J.H. was pushed down and hit his head. Whe n the CPS worker arrived at Mother ’s residence to investigate the complaint , no one was home . The worker called Mother ’s cell phone and told her that the w orker needed to see Mother and J.H

. Mother told the worker that the worker was not allowed to show up at her residence wit hout calling first and then Mother “hung up” on the worker. According to the affidavit, as the worker was leaving , Mother got out of a vehicle with J.H. The worker noted that J.H. had a scratch under his right eye and a bright red spot on his right eyeball. Mother told the worker that the scratch was from J.H. fighting with his cousin who was the same age as J.H . Mother also told the CPS worker that the spot in J.H.’s eye was from the same fight or from “Pink Eye.” Mother refused to let the worker take photograph s of J.H. The worker witnessed Mother cussing at J.H., J.H. walking up stairs unassisted , and J.H. eating “ old ” food. In August of 2009, one of Mother ’s sister s, C.J. , called t he worker and5 explained that C.J. had been appointed J.H.’s guardian and keeps J.H. on the weekends, but that C.J. was concerned because “every weekend he comes over with new marks and bruises[.]” C.J. explai ned that Mother told her that the marks and bruises were from J.H. falling. According to the affidavit , J.H. was voluntarily placed with one of Mother’s sisters , S.H ., on September 10, 2009, and Mother completed a substance abuse assessment and began par enting classes. On January 29, 2010, the CPS worker

m ade an unannounced visit to Mother ’s home and could see Mother standing in the window and J.H. running around the living room. Mother came to the window and told the worker she was not going to open the door, and Mother closed the blinds. The affidavit further alleged the CPS worker called law enforcement, after which J.H. was observed to have a scab on his nose, a scab under his left eye, and a bruise beside his right eye. When asked how J.H. sustained the injuries, Mother responded that J.H. was playing with the blinds at S.H.’s home and the blinds hit him in the face. Mother explained that J.H. was with her because S.H. had to go somewhere and needed Mother to watch J.H. The CPS w orker also learned tha t Mother had failed to get one of J.H.’s prescriptions refilled

. On February 1, 2010, the trial court signed an Order f or Protection of a Child in an Emergency and Notice of Hearing, and the order named the6 Department as J.H.’s temporary sole managing co nservator. On February 8, 2010, and after a full adversary hearing, the trial court signed an order naming the Department as J.H.’s temporary managing conservator, granting Mother and Father supervised visitation with J.H. , and ordering Mother and Father t o attend counseling and parenting classes, submit to drug and alcohol assessments and testing, and comply with their service plans during the pendency of the suit. J.H. was then placed with his maternal great

- grandmother. As a result of an A greed
F inal O rd er signed by the trial court on November 2, 2010 , C.J. and R.J., J.H. ’s aunt and uncle , were ultimately named the permanent managing con servators of J.H., with Mother having the right to supervised visits with J.H. The 2013 Removal On October 29, 2013, after a referral alleging the neglectful supe rvision of J.H. by the aunt and uncle , sexual abuse of J.H. by an unknown perpetrator, and that C.J. and R.J. had stated they no longer wanted to care for J.H., the Department filed a petition for protect ion of J.H., for conservators hip, and fo r termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights (the 2013 Petition) . The Department attached to the 2013 Petition a Department representative’s sign ed and notarize d affidavit in support of removal of J.H. from C.J.’s and R.J.’s care. The affidavit stated that because C.J. and R.J. “refus[ed] to accept parental responsibility for [J.H.][,]” the7 Department was requesting to be named J.H.’s temporary m anaging conservator

. The trial c ourt signed an Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency, which stated that there was a danger to J.H. and appointed the Department as J.H.’s temporary managing conservator for the second time. On November 6, 2013, a fter a full adversary hearing, the court signed a temporary order finding that C.J. and R.J. were unwilling and unable to provide J.H. a home, and the court appointed the Department as temporary ma naging conservator and Mother and Father as temporary possessory conservators with limited rights and duties. The order requi red, pursuant to section 263.106 of the Texas Family Code, Mother to comply with each requirement of the Department’s service plan during the pendency of the suit. Although represented by counsel, the hearing transcript and the order do not reflect that Mo ther attend ed the trial. After hearing evidence at a bench trial in April of 2015 , the trial cour t entered a termination order terminating F ather ’s parental rights as to J.H. , finding that such termination i s in J.H.’s best interest , and that Father had executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by Chapter 161. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(K), (2). In the termination order t he trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights as to J.H. , fin ding such termination i s in J. H.’s best interest , and that Mother failed to comply with8 the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to ob tain the return of J.H., who has been in the permanent or temporary

man aging conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of J.H.’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child. See id. § 161.001(1)(O), (2). Mother appealed.
S TANDARD OF R EVIEW In proceedings to terminate the parent

- child relationship brought under section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code, the petitioner must establish at least one ground listed under subdivision (1) of the statute, and must also prove that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001;
In re J.L ., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Due process requires the petitioner to justify termination by clear and convincing evidence. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001, 161.206(a) (West 2014 ); In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002). “Clear and convincing” evidence is th at “measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. ” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007 (West 2014). In a legal sufficiency review of an order terminating parental rights, the evidence relating to a c hallenged finding is reviewed “ in the light most favorable to9 the finding to determine whether a reasonable tri er of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true.” In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 266

. With respect to Mother ’s factual sufficiency arguments, we must “give due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably ha ve found to be clear and convincing.” Id. Under a factual sufficiency standard, the trial court’s findings are sufficient unless, based on the entire record, the disputed evidence that could not have been credited in favor of the finding is so significant that the trial court could not have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that the challenged finding was true. See id.
T ESTIMONY AND O THER E VIDENCE P RESENTED A T T RIAL T he CPS caseworker assigned to the case testified that the Department had been the temporary managing conservator of J.H. since November of 2013. She stated that the Department had custody of J.H. on a prior occasion , that J.H. was initially removed from Mother ’s care due to neglect, and that J .H.’s relatives were appointed permanent mana ging conservators. According to the caseworker , Mother has not provided proof of completion of the following tasks required by her service plan: individual counseling, parenting classes, some of the random drug screens, maint enance of stable and appropriate housing, and maint enance and proof of employment. After Mother ’s drug and alcohol assessment, Mother failed to10 participate in the recommended outpatient services, individual counseling, and a psychiatric evaluation. According to the caseworker , although Mother claims she has been hospitalized five to seven times for her sickle cell anemia , the caseworker has not seen documentation of the hospitalizations and she believes Mother has been give n a fair opportunity to complete all o f her services. The caseworker testified that she told Mother that if tr ansportation was an issue, the caseworker could provide transportation to services. The caseworker also testified that all of J.H.’s relatives who had been suggested as possible placement s for J.H. were either unable or unwill ing to care for J.H.

. At the supervised visits that Mother attended, the caseworker observed that sometimes Mother appeared not to be feeling well , Mother would want to sle ep during the visits, and would hand J.H. a phone. According to the caseworker , there

were several visits that Mother indicated she would attend but then Mother failed to appear, which upset J.H. and caused him to cry and have some behavior issues

at school . As a result of Mother ’s failure to appear at visitations, the visits were suspended by court order in September 2014. The caseworker explained that Mother never brought up visitation with J.H. again or ask ed that visitation be reinstated. The casew orker testified that despite Mother ’s inability to be able to provide J.H. wi th a safe and stable home , the caseworker believes that Mother11 loves J.H. According to the caseworker , she asked Mother to demonstrate a willingness and an ability to protect J.H. from harm, to accept the responsibility of being a parent, and to put J.H.’s needs ahead of her own. The caseworker testified that Mother has not achieved these goals. The caseworker explained that, alt houg h J.H. stil l wants to see M other, the caseworker believes that terminating Mother ’s parental rights to J.H. is in his best interest because J.H. needs stability and a family , and his behavior and demeanor are suffering because he does not have
permanency . The caseworker testified that the Department’s goal for J.H. is to get him into an adoptive home as soon as possible. She explained that J.H. is currently in a foster home and, although the foster parents are agreeable to J.H. living there, they are not willing to adopt him.
T he court

- appointed s peci al advocate (CASA) for J.H. also testified at trial. She stated that terminating Mother ’s parental rights as to J.H. is in J.H.’s best interest. According to the CASA , “the first couple of visits” between Mother and J.H. were “really nice[,] ” but then “the visits bec[a]me very inconsistent” and Mother would “give him her phone so he could play games and then she would go over to the corner, curl up, and go to sleep. Sometimes she would sleep through almost the entire visit.” The CASA explained that after Mother did not appear for12 four consecutive scheduled visits, J.H. go t progressively more upset , and the
CASA “grew to be in favor of suspending the visits.” The CASA testified that after the visits were suspended, Mother never mentioned it agai n . The CASA agreed that, even considering Mother ’s health issues, Mother was given a sufficient opportunity to comp lete her services and that the CPS caseworker went “above and beyond” to provide services for Mother

. The CASA was present when the casewo rker offered to provide Mother transportation to

se rvices, and the CASA also provided her phone number to Mother in order to help set up transport ation for Mother if necessary, but Mother never called the CASA

. The CASA admitted that Mother appeared ill and that her health issues could have impacted Mother’s ability to complete services, but Mother never told the CASA that she was unable to participate in services because of her illness

. According to the CASA , although J.H.’s current foster parents have stated several times that they are willing to keep J.H. until he is adopted by another family, the foster parents’ inquiries about when J.H. might be leaving have increased as J.H.’s behavioral problems have escalated. The foster parents have four other foster children in their home. The CASA expressed concern that J.H.’s placement might have to be moved in the interim. The CASA also noted that J.H.’s behavioral issues escalated when the other foster children in the foster home had13 contact wit h their parents. The CASA attributed J.H.’s behavioral issues to his awareness that he does not have a permanent home or a permanent person who is dedicated to him. The CASA testified that the Department had recommended that J.H. cease contact with Mother and the CASA supported it, based on the recommendations from J.H.’s therapist

. According to the CASA , J.H. knows he cannot live with Mother , and although he has mentioned to the CASA wanting to call his M other on two or three occasions , he ha s not ask ed t o see her

. The CASA testified that she believed it was in the best interest of J.H. for the trial court to terminate Mother’s parental rights to J.H. At trial, F ather’s affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights as to J.H. and an order terminating Mother ’s parental rights as to another child were also admitted into evidence. The trial court also took judicial notice of pleadings and certain documents in the clerk’s file, including the temporary order dated November 6, 2013 , and the order consolidating this case with the previous case appointing C.J. and R.J. as permanent managing conservators for J.H.
S TATUTORY G ROUNDS FOR T ERMINATION In her first issue, Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to show that J.H. “was removed from the conservator due to abuse or neglect.” See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O). Appellant does not contest that she did not14 complete the family service plan or that J.H. had been removed from her care for more than nine months at the time of the termination hearing. According to appellant, the Department “failed to present evidence as to any abuse and neglect” necessitating the 2013 removal because the relatives that were app ointed conservators of J.H. in 2010 “placed [J.H.] in the care of the Department because they could no longer care for him[.]” Section 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code provides that a court may terminate the parent

- child relationship if the parent:
f

ailed to comply 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 P rotective Services 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 [

. ] Id. The parent who fails to comply with a court order as required by subsection (O) need not be the same person whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal

. See In re D. R.H. , 395 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2013, no pet.); In

r e D.R.A. , 374 S.W.3d 528, 532 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
We interpret the terms “abuse” and “neglect” broadly to include risks or threats presented by the child’s environment. See In re E.C.R ., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2013). Evidence of abuse or neglect submitted in an affidavit attached to a petition for removal , combined with unchallenged tr i a l court findings that removal of the15 child from the parent’s care was necessary because of a “substantial risk of a continuing danger” if the child returned home, provides sufficient evidence to establish that a child was removed fro m the parent’s custody under C hapter 262 for abuse or neglect. See id. at 248

- 4 9. Although J.H. was removed from the care of the relatives appointed as managing conservators, J.H. was originally removed from Mother’s care pursuant to Chapter 262. The trial court consolidated the cases and took judicial notice of the pleadings in the prior case . In 2 009, the Department received reports that Mother was carrying marijuana in her diaper bag and that Mother was neglecting and p hysically abusing J.H. Mother’s sister reported her concern of new bruises and marks on J.H. after he was in Mother’s care. The Department received a report that J.H. had been seen in the emergency room several times and that he was not being supervised. J .H.’s original removal from Mother’s care based upon neglect

was a precipitating event from which the modification proceeding terminating Mother ’s parental rights began and from which J.H. was placed with his relatives. See generally In re B.C. , No. 04

- 14

- 00744

- CV, 2015 Te x. App. LEXIS 4327,
**11

- 12 (Te x. App.

— San Antonio Apr. 29, 2015, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( In a case where appellant

- f ather argued the Department did not prove that the alleged abuse or neglect under section 161.001(1)(O) was “at the hands of a parent[,]” the trial16 court concluded that the evidence was factual ly sufficient to support termination under subsection (O) where, although the children were subsequently removed from a unt’s home for abuse of one of the children, the c hildren’s earlier removal from m other’s home based on neglect was the “precipitating event from which the termination proceeding s began and from which the children were placed in Aunt’s home

. ”). Furthermore, Mother does not challenge on appeal the trial court’s finding that the October 29, 2013 Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency (wherein the Department was appointed J.H.’s temporary managing conservator for the second time) was necessary because of Mother ’s continued neglect. On this record, the tr ial court could have determined that , considering evidence of Mother’s neglect of J.H. that resulted in the 2010 removal, Mother’s continued neglect of J.H. after he was voluntarily placed with a relative, and Mother’s failure to complete her service plan during the pendency of the suit , the Department presented clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under section 161.001(O). We conclude that there is sufficient evidence that Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that sp ecifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the J.H. who had been in the conservatorship of the Department for more than nine months and had been

remo ved due to abuse or neglect. I ssue one is overruled

.17 B EST I NTEREST OF THE C HILD In Mother ’s second issue , she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination of her parental rights is in J.H.’s best interest. The Texas Supreme Court has recognized a non

- exhaustive list of factors that are pertinent to the inquiry of whether term ination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child including: (1) the desires of the child, (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future, (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, (5) programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child , (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody, (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement, (8) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent

- child relationship is not a proper one, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 37 1

- 72 (Tex. 1976); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2 63 .307 (West 2014). No particular Holley factor is controlling, and evidence of one factor may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. See In re A.P. , 184 S.W.3d 410, 414

- 15 (Tex. App

. — D allas 2006, no pet.). The best interest determination may rely on direct or circumstantial evidence, subjective factors, and18 the totality of the evidence. See In re N.R.T ., 338 S.W.3d 667, 677 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, no pet.). With respect to the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother ’s parental rights w as in J.H.’s best interest, Mother asserts that, when considering the Holley factors, the State failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial to overcome the strong pr esumption that J.H.’s best interest i s served by not terminating Mother ’s parental rights because both the caseworker and the CASA testified that the evidence showed J.H. had expressed his desires to maintain a relationship wi th his mother and siblings . Mo ther argues that the attorney ad litem appointed for J.H. ad vocated that termination of Mother ’s rights was not in the child’s best interests; that the CASA testified that J.H. was struggling with his current placement due to lack of contact with Mother ; t hat there is no evidence that the existing parent

- chil d relationship is improper; and that Mother ’s health problems affected her ability to complete her service plan and that “[i]t was cl ear to the caseworker that [Mother ] was suffering from a chronic illn ess.”
T he trial c ourt could have considered the affidavits in support of the 2010 and 2013 removals discussing Mother’s continued neglect of J.H. during the pendency of the case, as well as other evidence in the record including , among other things, the caseworker’s testimony . The trial court heard the testimony of the19 CPS caseworker who testified that Mother had not demonstrated a willingness or ability to protect J.H. from harm or to pu t J.H.’s needs ahead of her own , that Mother was unable to provide J .H. with a s afe and stable home , that J.H.’s behavior and demeanor are suffering beca use he does not have permanency , and that o nce the visitations between Mother and J.H. ceased, Mother never brought up visitation again or asked that visitation be reinsta ted. The trial court could have also considered the CASA’s testimony . The CASA supported the cessation of the visits between Mother and J.H. after the CASA sa w the detrimental effect on J.H. after Mother ’s failure to attend the visits

. The trial court also heard testimony that J.H.’s therapist had recommended that the visits between J.H. and Mother cease. T he record does not support M other ’s assertion that the attorney ad litem “advocated” against termination. The portion of the reporte r’s record from trial to which Mother cites on appeal for this assertion provides the following: [Ad Litem]: I think the evidence is undisputed that the child, [J.H.] , wants contact with his mother in some form, whether by phone or in person. And no matter what legal vehicle will get him there, he’s desperate for that contact. And I think that came through in the witnesses that we had. He has asked me to ask you for that contact and that’s what I’m doing now. THE COURT: Want to ask you as attorney ad lite m . . . . [T]he way I see it, we have three options in most of these cases as well as this case: And that is, return the child to the parent or parents and deny the Department’s requests;20 Secondly, appoint the Department PMC without termination and appoi nt the parents possessory conservators with visitation; Third, terminate the parents[’] [parental rights] and appoint the Department PMC. You’ re advocating for the child. What does the child want? [Ad Litem]: You r Honor, the child wants contact with his mother. He knows he can’t live there. I think that Option A, returning to the parent, is unsupported and I think it’s realistic for the child and he knows that is not possible in the case at this time. So I think t hat’s completely off the table. With regard to the other two, he just wants contact. Whether that’s done through the Department allowing contact post

termination/pre

- adoption even, if an accommodation could be ma de to that sort. He wants any kind of conta ct he could get, even if were for purposes of closure or just knowing that he has the opportunity to speak with her. THE COURT: Thank you. The attorney ad litem did not advocate “against termination.” Rather, the attorney ad

- litem merely stated that J.H. had expressed an interest in having the opportunity

to speak to Mother after termination or pre

- adoption. And , the attorney ad

- litem testified that termination is in the best interest of J.H. The record citation Mother provides for her contention th at “[t]he CASA advocate also testified that the child was struggling with his current placement due to his lack of contact with his mother” references the CASA’s testimony that the dynamic in the foster home is “not very good” because the other foster chil dren in the foster home have contact with their parents and J.H. “wonders why he can’t21 have contact with his mother.” The CASA explained that J.H.’s incidents of bad behavior at home or school “seem to correspond with when the other children have

contact w ith their parents

. ” T he CASA attribute d J.H.’s bad behavior to his “awareness that he does not have a permanent home or a permanent person who is dedicated to him, who loves him.” The trial court heard the CASA testify that she had visited J.H. in the fost er home on c e or twice a month since November 2013 , and further that J.H. did not ask the CASA about Mother until a year later , five months after the visitations between J.H. and Mother had ceased. And, the CASA testified that termination of Mother’s parent al rights is in the best interest of J.H. With respect to Mother ’s argument that her health condition resulted in repeated hospital stays and that it was c lear to the caseworker that Mother was suffering from a chronic illness, t he trial court could have considered the caseworker ’s testimony , along with the testimony from the CASA. According to the caseworker, Mother did not provide proof that her hospital stays or illness was the reason she was unable to complete her service plan . T he CASA testified that she had never received any evidence from Mother that she could not participate in a service because she was in the hospital and that the CASA thought that Mother was “choosing not to do what she need[ed] to do.” However, t he CASA also

e xplained that she ov erheard Mother tell the caseworker that she could not get to22 counseling because she did not have a ride and that she was sick and could not go. According to the CASA, she and the caseworker had offered to arrange transportation for Mother on several occasi ons if she needed it, and that Mother did not provide proof that her illness was the reason for her failing to attend counseling. The trial court also heard the CASA te stify that, even considering Mother’s health issues, Mother was given sufficient opportu nity to complete her services and that the caseworker went “ above and beyond to provide Mother with services. Furthermore, t he trial court could have considered that the caseworker and the CASA believed it was in J.H.’s best interest to terminate Mother ’s parental rights to J.H. After considering the relevant Holley factors, we conclude that the trial court reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the best interest of J.H. See J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d at 266. Viewing all of the evidence, the disputed evidence is not so significant that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved the disputed evidence in favor of its finding. See id

. Based on our review of the entire record, the trial cou rt could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of
J.H. We conclude that t he evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to23 support the best interest finding. We overrule Mot her’s second issue. T he trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice
Submitted on July 27, 2015 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.