Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00773-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M. AKA T.M. AND T.J.W. AKA T.W., 

CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-05924J

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

Appellant T.R.R. aka T.R.W. (the Mother) appeals the termination of her 

parental rights to the Children, T.R.M. aka T.M. (the Daughter) and T.J.W. aka 

T.W. (the Son).1In her sole issue, the Mother challenges the legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination of 

her parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Concluding that the evidence is 

sufficient, we affirm.

 

1

To protect the identities of the minors, we have not used the names of the Children, 

parents, or other family members. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The Children’s alleged father’s rights 

were also terminated, but he is not a party to the appeal. In addition, an older half-sibling with a 

different father was initially named in this proceeding, but she was returned to her father’s family

and is not a subject of this appeal.
2

I. BACKGROUND

On September 27, 2013, the Department of Family and Protective Services 

(the Department) received a referral alleging neglectful supervision and physical 

abuse of the Children. Specifically, it was alleged that the Mother’s common-law 

husband (the Husband) abused the Children and the Mother did nothing to stop the 

abuse. 

The record reflects that the Daughter was born November 28, 2006, and the 

Son was born December 8, 2007. When the referral to the Department was made, 

the Mother had already voluntarily placed the Children, who were then ages six

and five, with relatives for about three or four months during the summer of 2013. 

The Daughter was left with her maternal grandmother (the Grandmother) and the 

Son was with the Mother’s cousin (the Cousin). The Mother did not return to get 

the Children in the fall as planned, and she informed relatives that she did not 

intend to return for the Children. The relatives reported the Children had bruises on 

their lower backs and upper arms inflicted by the Husband. The relationship 

between the Mother and the Husband was described as “extremely abusive,” and 

the Husband was alleged to have threatened the Mother and Children with a 

firearm. The relatives also reported the Mother had an “active addiction to cocaine 

and marijuana.” The Mother had not visited the Children during the time they were 

left with her relatives. The relatives were unable to enroll the Children in school 

because the Mother had not provided the necessary documentation, including their 

birth certificates and social security numbers. 

The Department initiated an investigation of the referral, and the initial 

investigative caseworker assigned to the case, Jamilla Bluford, interviewed the 

Cousin on September 27, 2013. The Cousin stated she did not know the Mother’s 

whereabouts. The Cousin confirmed that she had been unable to enroll the Son in 

school because she did not have the necessary legal documents and the Mother had 
3

ignored her requests to provide them. The Cousin reported the Mother is in a 

“horrible” relationship and her Husband is very controlling. She also reported that 

both the Mother and her Husband were “on cocaine and are not fit to provide for 

the Children.”

The caseworker interviewed the Grandmother on October 2, 2013. The 

Grandmother confirmed that the Daughter was also not enrolled in school because 

the Mother had not provided a birth certificate or social security card. In addition, 

the Grandmother stated the Mother had not provided a Medicaid card so that she 

could provide adequate medical care for the Daughter. The Grandmother claimed 

she had no contact information for the Mother, but she stated she would try to find 

her and tell her about the investigation. Shortly thereafter, the Grandmother called 

the Department’s caseworker, informing her she had located the Mother and 

allowed her to come inside her home to speak on the phone. The Mother informed 

the caseworker she was homeless and living on the street. When the Mother was 

told she would be required to undergo drug screening, the Mother became enraged, 

screamed obscenities, grabbed the Children and left. The Department summoned 

the police to search for the Mother and the Children, but the Mother returned the 

Children to the Grandmother later that evening. 

The Grandmother brought the Children to the Department for interviews the 

next day, and a safety plan was instituted in which the Grandmother agreed not to 

return the Children to their Mother. The Grandmother also agreed that she would 

not permit her husband to have unsupervised contact with the Children because of

previous allegations that he sexually abused the Children’s half-sister. At that time, 

the Grandmother’s husband was reported to no longer reside at the Grandmother’s 

home. 

The Mother contacted the Department on October 9, 2013, and set up an 

appointment for an interview. She did not show up for the appointment, however. 
4

As a result of its investigation, the Department made the decision to seek 

temporary conservatorship of the Children and filed suit on October 25, 2013. 

Because the Department had concerns that the Grandmother’s husband continued 

to be around the Daughter, the Department also moved for an emergency order for 

protection of the Children, which was signed that day. The Department was named 

temporary managing conservator of the Children, and they were both placed with 

the Cousin.

The Mother’s court-appointed attorney ad litem appeared with the Mother at 

the adversary hearing on November 5, 2013. At the hearing, caseworker Bluford

testified that the Mother was homeless. The caseworker stated the Mother would 

be permitted to visit the Children if she tested clean for drugs at the conclusion of 

the hearing. The Mother testified at the hearing that she was comfortable with the 

Children’s placement with her Cousin. The Mother stated that she was staying at 

the home of her Husband’s cousin. When asked for her address, the Mother

testified she did not know because she just started living there. The Mother 

underwent drug testing after the hearing and the results were positive for cocaine 

and marijuana. As a result, the Mother was ordered to have no contact with the 

Children until her drug tests were negative for illegal drugs.

In December 2013, the Department requested removal of the Children from 

the Cousin’s residence, alleging the placement did not meet the Children’s needs. 

The new caseworker assigned to the case, Linda Phillips, testified at the December 

12, 2013, status hearing that the Department’s home study of the Cousin’s home 

was not approved. The Department had discovered that the Cousin was financially 

dependent on her parents and she had no car. The Children were sleeping on the 

living room sofa, and the Son was reportedly acting out sexually. In addition, the 

Department had recently learned that the Cousin permitted the Mother to be around 

the Children even though she was not allowed to have contact with them. The 
5

Cousin called the police the second time the Mother visited, however, because the 

Mother brought her Husband, who was smoking marijuana in the car. The 

caseworker testified that at the time of the status hearing, the Mother’s 

whereabouts were unknown. The trial court granted the Department’s request and 

placed the Children in foster care. 

The Mother’s family service plan was filed with the court on December 10, 

2013. The tasks set out in the plan included requirements that the Mother complete 

domestic violence and parenting classes, undergo random drug tests and test 

negative at all times, maintain stable housing and employment for more than six 

months, and complete a drug assessment and follow all recommendations. On 

December 12, 2013, the trial court ordered the Mother to comply with the plan. On 

December 17, 2013, the trial court issued additional temporary orders requiring the 

Mother to complete substance abuse treatment, undergo a psychological 

evaluation, and participate in counseling.

The court conducted regular status and permanency hearings to monitor the 

Children’s status and the Mother’s progress in completing her court-ordered 

services. In January 2014, the trial court appointed Child Advocates, Inc. (the 

Advocate) as guardian ad litem for the Children. The Advocate filed periodic 

reports with the court. 

The case was tried to the court on August 21, 2014. Most of the 

Department’s exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection. Caseworker 

Bluford’s affidavit setting out the bases for the Children’s removal was admitted, 

and the Department’s permanency plan, in which the Department recommended 

termination of parental rights and unrelated adoption, was also admitted. In 

addition, the Advocate’s final report was admitted. Records from the National 

Screening Center detailing the Mother’s positive drug tests were also admitted. A 

report from the Texas Alcohol and Drug Testing Service was admitted after an 
6

objection was overruled that the business record, while timely filed, had been

served late. 

The Mother testified at trial. Caseworker Phillips testified about the 

circumstances leading to the Department’s involvement with the Children resulting 

in their placement in foster care. In addition, Phillips testified about the Mother’s 

failure to complete the tasks in her service plan. Phillips also testified about the 

Children’s placement, and she explained the reasons for her recommendation that 

termination of the Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. The 

Advocate also testified at trial and recommended termination of the Mother’s 

parental rights because she had not shown she could provide a safe environment 

for the Children. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted the Department’s request for 

termination of the Mother’s parental rights to the Children. On September 4, 2014, 

the trial court signed a final judgment reciting that the Mother’s parental rights 

were terminated based on findings that termination is in the Children’s best interest 

and that the Mother committed acts establishing the predicate termination grounds 

set out in subsections E and O of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1). Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann. §§161.001(1)(E) & (O); 161.001(2) (West 2014). The Department 

was appointed sole managing conservator of the Children. The Mother filed a 

timely notice of appeal.

II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Parental rights can be terminated upon proof by clear and convincing 

evidence that (1) the parent has committed an act prohibited by section 161.001(1) 

of the Family Code; and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1), (2) (West 2014); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 

(Tex. 2009). The Mother’s sole issue on appeal challenges the legal and factual 
7

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination is in 

the Children’s best interest.

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 parental rights are of constitutional magnitude, they are not 

absolute. In re 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 essential 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 Ann. § 161.001 (West 2014); 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 Ann. § 

101.007 (West 2014); 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.).

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 disregard all evidence 

that a reasonable fact finder could have disbelieved. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 

344; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.
8

We consider and weigh all of the evidence, including disputed or conflicting 

evidence, in reviewing termination findings for factual sufficiency of the 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 reasonably have formed a firm 

belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient.” Id. We 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, 108 (Tex. 2006). The fact 

finder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. 

Id. at 109. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Unchallenged Predicate Termination Findings under Section 

161.001(1)

The trial court made predicate termination findings that the Mother had 

committed acts establishing the grounds set out in subsections E and O, which 

provide that termination of parental rights is warranted if the factfinder 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 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 Protective 

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; . . . .
9

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E) & (O) (West 2014).

The Mother has not challenged the predicate termination findings under 

section 161.001(1). Unchallenged predicate findings are binding on the appellate 

court. See In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2014, pet. denied); see also IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro–Line Corp., 938 

S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1997). These unchallenged predicate findings can therefore 

support the best interest finding. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (holding that the 

same evidence may be probative of both section 161.001(1) predicate grounds and 

best interest).

B. Best-Interest Finding Under Section 161.001(2)

We review the entire record in deciding a challenge to the court’s best 

interest finding. In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013). There is a strong 

presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the child with his 

or her natural parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 

374 S.W.3d at 533. Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe 

environment is also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 263.307(a) (West 2014). 

Courts may consider the following nonexclusive factors in reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the best interest finding, including: the 

desires of the child; the present and future physical and emotional needs of the 

child; the present and future emotional and physical danger to the child; the 

parental abilities of the persons seeking custody; the programs available to assist 

those persons seeking custody in promoting the best interest of the child; the plans 

for the child by the individuals 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 relationship is not appropriate; and any excuse for the 
10

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 parental rights. Id.; In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d at 533. 

1. Present and Future Physical and Emotional Danger to the Children

We begin our analysis by reviewing the evidence supporting the predicate 

termination grounds found by the trial court that also support a finding that 

termination is in the best interest of the Children. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.

A parent’s ability to provide a child with a safe environment is a primary 

consideration in determining the child’s best interest. In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633,

642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). The Mother has not 

challenged the trial court’s finding that she engaged in conduct, or placed the 

Children with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered the Children’s 

physical or emotional well-being. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E) (West 

2014).

“To endanger” means to expose a child to loss or injury or to jeopardize a 

child’s emotional or physical health. See In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.

1996). While endangerment often involves physical endangerment, the statute does 

not require that conduct be directed at a child or that the child actually suffer 

injury; rather, the specific danger to the child’s well-being may be inferred from 

parents’ misconduct alone. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 

533 (Tex. 1987); In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 738–39 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2004, pet. denied). The record contains the following evidence supporting the 

physical and emotional danger to the Children.

a. Drug Use

The Supreme Court of Texas has recognized that a parent’s use of narcotics 

and the resulting impact on her ability to parent may qualify as an endangering 
11

course of conduct. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345; see also Edwards v. Tex. Dep’t 

of Protective Servs., 946 S.W.2d 130, 138 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ)

(stating a parent’s drug use is a condition that can endanger a child’s physical or 

emotional well-being and indicate instability in home environment). A parent’s 

drug use also 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.); see 

also In re M.S.L., No. 14-14-00382-CV, 2014 WL 5148157, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 14, 2014, no. pet.) (mem. op.). The factfinder can give 

“great weight” to the “significant factor” of drug-related conduct. In re K.C., 219 

S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); 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 termination was in the best interest of the child). 

The record here shows that the Mother tested positive for illegal drugs while 

the Children were in the Department’s care. The Mother tested positive for cocaine 

and marijuana at three drug tests, but she denied cocaine use. The Mother’s drug 

use was well known to her family. The Cousin told the Department’s caseworker 

that the Mother and her husband were “on cocaine,” and the Grandmother 

suspected the Mother was addicted to cocaine. In June 2013, the Mother missed a 

court-ordered drug test due to her failure to appear at the scheduled hearing. In 

addition, caseworker Phillips testified that she had been unable to reach the Mother 

on several occasions to conduct random drug tests. A March 26, 2014, drug test 

was negative, but the next month, in April, the results were again positive for 

cocaine and marijuana. The caseworker acknowledged that two tests shortly before 

trial were negative for illegal substances. 

The Advocate testified that the Mother denied all drug use despite the 

positive tests. For this reason, the Advocate stated “it’s hard to believe what she 
12

says.” The trial court, as the fact finder, evaluated the credibility of the Mother’s 

denials, and we may not disturb that determination. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at

108. The Advocated pointed out that despite the possibility that the Mother might 

lose her parental rights, the Mother failed to participate in the rehabilitative 

services designed to address her drug use.

The evidence at trial confirmed that the Mother continued to use drugs in the 

face of a court order conditioning her reunification with her Children on her ability 

to remain drug-free. Continued illegal drug use after a child’s removal is conduct 

that jeopardizes parental rights and may be considered as establishing an 

endangering course of conduct and showing that termination is in the best interest 

of the child. Cervantes–Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 

S.W.3d 244, 253–54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (en banc).

b. Domestic Violence and Abusive Conduct

A parent’s 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.). “Domestic violence, want of self-control, and 

propensity for violence may be considered as evidence of endangerment.” Id. at

845–46 (stating that such abuse is a factor under Holley). The factfinder may infer 

from past conduct endangering a child’s well-being that similar conduct will recur 

if the child is returned to the parent. In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).

The Department found that the allegation that the Husband abused the Son 

was substantiated. Caseworker Phillips testified that the reason the Department 

initially removed the Children from their Mother’s care was because the Mother 

had allowed the Husband to physically abuse the Son. She testified that the Son 

had been hit with a stick and the Husband threatened the Children with a gun. In 
13

addition, both Children had bruising on their lower backs and upper arms. The 

Advocate was also concerned that the Husband reportedly shot a gun in the house 

while the Children were there. Although the Mother told the caseworker her 

Husband would not hurt the Children, she has not challenged the endangerment

finding and it is binding on this court. Both the caseworker and the Advocate 

expressed concern that the Mother was still with the Husband at the time of trial, 

despite the abuse allegations. In addition, the Mother did not deny that the 

Husband engaged in abusive conduct toward her. The Cousin, who had cared for 

the Son, told the Department’s caseworker that the Mother was in a “horrible” 

relationship with her Husband. The Husband burned the Mother’s clothes, stole

money from her, and physically abused the Mother. 

This evidence of violence and abuse supports the trial court’s best-interest 

finding. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 846 (stating domestic violence, even when 

the child is not the intended victim, supports a finding that termination is in the 

child’s best interest). One parent’s endangerment of a child by permitting exposure 

to the other parent’s dangerous conduct is a relevant consideration in determining a 

child’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684–85 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2013, no pet.). The factfinder reasonably could have considered that the 

Husband’s acts of violence would continue in the future. See Walker v. Texas 

Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

c. Unsuccessfully Treated Mental Illness

Mental illness alone is not grounds for terminating the parent-child 

relationship. Maxwell v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03–11–

00242–CV, 2012 WL 987787, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 23, 2012, no pet.) 

(mem. op.). Unsucessfully treated mental illness can expose a child to 

endangerment, however, and is a factor the court may consider. See id. at *10; In 
14

re L.L.F., No. 02–11–00485–CV, 2012 WL 2923291, at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth July 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering a parent’s failure to take 

medication to treat mental health issues as a factor in creating an environment that 

endangers the child’s emotional or physical well-being); In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 

at 845 (considering a parent’s mental health and non-compliance with her 

medication schedule as factors in endangering the child).

The record contains evidence related to the Mother’s mental health and her 

failure to participate in services to treat her condition. Caseworker Phillips testified 

that the Mother reported that she had been diagnosed as having bipolar disorder 

and schizophrenia. The Mother advised the Department that she receives 

medication from the Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority (MHMRA). The 

Mother testified that she currently takes several medications and sees a doctor once 

a month. The caseworker testified the Mother did not participate in court-ordered 

services, including a psychological evaluation and counseling. In September 2013, 

the Mother told the caseworker she had been hospitalized and provided an 

admission slip showing she was involuntarily admitted to the Harris County 

Psychiatric Center for suicidal ideation and auditory hallucinations. The Mother 

did not provide any other documentation, and the caseworker was unable to obtain 

records from the admission, however. The record does not reflect that the Mother 

was treated for these conditions.

This evidence of the Mother’s failure to comply with services to improve her 

mental health is a factor that the trial court could have considered in finding that 

the Mother engaged in a course of conduct that endangered the physical and 

emotional well-being of the Children. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 845–46

(finding mother’s suicidal thoughts and history of noncompliance with medication 

schedule relevant to endangerment and best-interest analyses); see also Liu v. Dep't 

of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 785, 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 
15

Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (considering mother’s mental health issues, hospitalizations, 

violent history, noncompliance with medications in concluding termination was in 

the child’s best interest). 

d. Lack of Stability

Stability and permanence are paramount in the upbringing of children. In re 

T.D.C., 91 S.W.3d 865, 873 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied). Failure to 

maintain stability endangers a child’s physical and emotional well-being. See In re 

A.B., 412 S.W.3d 588, 599 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013), aff’d, 437 S.W.3d 498 

(Tex. 2014). Evidence of a parent’s unstable lifestyle also can support a 

factfinder’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best 

interest. In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877, 887 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). A 

parent’s failure to show that she is stable enough to parent a child for any 

prolonged period entitles the trial court “to determine that this pattern would likely 

continue and that permanency could only be achieved through termination and 

adoption.” In re B.S.W., No. 14-04-00496-CV, 2004 WL 2964015, at *9 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 23, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The Department provided evidence that the Mother has been homeless and 

living on the street. The Mother left the Children with relatives and did not return 

for them as planned. The relatives had no way to contact the Mother. The Mother 

is not employed and has no means to support the Children. The factfinder 

reasonably could have concluded the Mother’s lack of stability supported the 

finding that termination is in the Children’s best interest. See In re A.C., 394 

S.W.3d at 643 (considering parents’ history of homelessness in concluding their

inability to provide a safe and stable environment supported the trial court’s 

finding that termination was in the child’s best interest); see also 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-
16

interest finding was supported where the father had a history of instability, 

domestic violence, and criminal activity).

2. Non-Compliance with Services 

The Mother also has not challenged the trial court’s finding that she failed to 

comply with the provisions of a court order establishing the actions necessary for 

her to obtain the return of the Children after their removal because of abuse or 

neglect. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O) (West 2014). In determining 

the best interest of a child in proceedings for termination of parental rights, the trial 

court may properly consider that the parent did not comply with the court-ordered 

service plan for reunification with the Child. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249 

(“Many of the reasons supporting termination under subsection O also support the 

trial court’s best interest finding.”); see also In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d at 752

(considering the failure to participate in services required for reunification in 

reviewing the best-interest determination).

The Mother’s family service plan was admitted into evidence. The courtordered service plan included requirements that the Mother complete domestic 

violence and parenting classes, undergo random drug tests and test negative at all 

times, attend all court hearings, conferences and visits, maintain stable housing for 

more than six months and provide a copy of her lease, develop a support system, 

complete a drug assessment within one month and follow all recommendations, 

avoid criminal activity, participate in a psychosocial evaluation and follow all 

recommendations, including therapy, and maintain documented employment for 

more than six months. The trial court issued additional temporary orders requiring 

the Mother to complete substance abuse treatment, complete a psychological 

evaluation, and participate in counseling.

Caseworker Phillips testified about the Mother’s failure to complete the 
17

tasks in her service plan. While the Mother made some attempts to comply with 

her court-ordered family service plan for reunification with the Children, she did 

not complete the requirements set out in the plan. The Mother failed to obtain 

stable housing or employment for a six-month period. She did not complete 

psychosocial or psychological evaluations, a drug assessment, or engage in 

therapy. She did not attend several court hearings, and in June she did not show up 

for a court-ordered drug test due to her failure to appear at the hearing. The Mother 

tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at numerous drug tests, including a test 

just a few months before trial. 

The Mother testified at trial that she completed domestic violence and 

parenting classes. She also testified she had lived in a one-bedroom house for six 

months and she planned to obtain a two-bedroom home. The Mother did not 

provide a copy of a lease as required by her service plan, however. She also 

acknowledged she had no “stuff” for the Children. The Mother did not respond 

when asked for the address of her home. The Mother stated she had obtained a job 

at a warehouse and she would start the following month. 

The caseworker had not been able to assess the mother’s residence or verify 

that she had obtained a job. The trial court evaluated the credibility of the Mother’s 

testimony, and we may not disturb the factfinder’s credibility determinations. The 

factfinder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of 

witnesses. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at 108. We are not to “second-guess the trial 

court’s resolution of a factual dispute by relying on evidence that is either disputed, 

or that the court could easily have rejected as not credible.” In re L.M.I., 119 

S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. 2003). In addition, the factfinder may conclude that a

parent’s changes shortly before trial are too late to have an impact on the bestinterest 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 
18

to effectively parent on the eve of trial [were] not enough to overcome a decade of 

poor parenting and neglect” in evaluating the best interest of the children). The 

evidence of the Mother’s failure to complete her court-ordered services supports 

the trial court’s best-interest finding. See In re A.D., 203 S.W.3d 407, 411–12 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 2006, pet. denied) (affirming termination of parental rights because 

mother failed to meet family service plan’s material requirements including drug 

assessment, finding a job, and providing a safe home).

3. Parenting Abilities

The factfinder may consider a parent’s parenting skills in a best-interest 

analysis. See In re C.A.J., 122 S.W.3d 888, 893 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no 

pet.). As part of our review of a finding that termination is in the Children’s best 

interest, we may also consider the Mother’s past performance as a parent in 

evaluating her fitness to provide for the Children. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28.

Although evidence of past misconduct or neglect alone may not be sufficient to 

show present unfitness, a fact finder may measure a parent’s future conduct by her 

past conduct indicating that it is in a child’s best interest to terminate her parental 

rights. See In re A.N.D., No. 02-12-00394-CV, 2013 WL 362753, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The Mother was living on the streets when this case was initiated. The 

Mother had not parented her Children, and instead left them with relatives without 

visiting or returning for them at the end of the summer as planned. In addition, the 

Children’s caregivers did not know how to reach the Mother. The record reflects 

the Mother’s neglect had been detrimental to the Children. Both Children were 

behind academically and had behavior problems. The Daughter had to repeat first 

grade because of reading problems. The caseworker explained that the Children 

were behind because this was the first time they had attended school. Both 

Children also had behavior issues. The Daughter failed to follow directions and 
19

blamed others for her behavior. The Son was argumentative, defiant, and had 

screaming tantrums. He was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADHD) and began taking medication to address the condition. 

Caseworker Phillips acknowledged the Mother maintained contact with the 

Department and stated she wanted to see her Children and have custody of the 

Children returned to her. The Mother testified she loves her Children and is 

fighting to get them back. A mother’s love for her children, however, will not 

obviate her inability to provide her children with a safe, stable home. See In re 

K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied).

A parent’s efforts to improve or enhance parenting skills are relevant in 

determining whether a parent’s conduct results in endangerment. See In re D.T., 34 

S.W.3d 625, 640 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied). The Mother asserts 

she participated in parenting classes and a domestic violence awareness program, 

but she failed to demonstrate any learned behavior to help her parent her Children 

safely. In addition, the Mother was still with her abusive Husband at the time of 

trial. The lack of evidence that the Mother could parent the Children supports the 

best-interest finding. See H.N. v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 397 S.W.3d 

802, 814 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (stating the father’s failure to 

demonstrate his parenting abilities supported the finding that termination was in 

the best interest of the child).

4. Children’s Desires, Needs, and Proposed Placement

The Children were very young at the time of trial and our record contains no 

evidence of the Children’s desires. When a child is too young to express his 

desires, the factfinder may consider that the child has bonded with the foster 

family, is well cared for by them, and has spent minimal time with a parent. In re 

J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). The 
20

evidence shows the Children had bonded with the foster parents and were wellcared for by them. See In re J.M., 156 S.W.3d 696, 706 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, 

no pet.). In contrast, they had not seen their Mother for several months while she 

left them with relatives, and the Mother was not permitted to visit the Children 

during the ten-month period this case was pending because of her positive drug 

tests. Evidence that a parent has failed to maintain any significant contact with the 

Children supports a trial court’s determination that termination is in the child’s best 

interest. See H.N., 397 S.W.3d at 814.

Lack of stability, including a stable home, supports a finding that the parent 

is unable to provide for a child’s emotional and physical needs. See In re G.M.G., 

444 S.W.3d at 46, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); see also 

Doyle v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 16 S.W.3d 390, 398 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 2000, pet. denied) (holding that a parent’s failure to provide a 

stable home and provide for a child’s needs contributes to a finding that 

termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest). The evidence of the 

Mother’s lack of stability is recited above. A child’s need for permanence through 

the establishment of a “stable, permanent home” has sometimes been recognized as 

the paramount consideration in a best-interest determination. See In re K.C., 219 

S.W.3d at 931. 

Because of the importance of stability to the physical and emotional needs of 

the Children, evidence about the present and future placement of the Children is

relevant to the best-interest determination. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28. The 

Children were placed together in a foster home and have been there since 

December 2013. The record evidence recites that the foster home is safe and stable, 

and the foster parents properly care for the Children’s needs and provide necessary 

services. The foster parents are providing for the Children’s medical, dental, 

developmental, educational, and emotional needs. They took the Children to all of 
21

their medical appointments, and they had purchased school clothes for the Children 

after the Mother’s relatives refused to deliver the Children’s clothes. Phillips 

testified that the Mother was “not able to provide a stable loving home for the 

kids.” In her opinion, it is in the Children’s best interest to terminate the Mother’s 

parental rights and keep the Children in the foster home.

Records admitted at trial show both Children received counseling while in 

foster care. The Advocate’s report stated that both Children engaged in weekly

therapy. The Children were also to receive tutoring when school resumed in the 

fall. By the time of trial, both children were doing better and had adjusted well to 

the foster home. The Son was in kindergarten and ready to start first grade. He 

started showing improvements after he began taking medication for ADHD. The 

Daughter had begun taking Prozac for depression. 

The Advocate, who was the Children’s guardian ad litem, testified that in 

her opinion, termination of the parents’ parental rights is in the best interest of the 

Children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.002(e) (West 2014) (setting out the 

guardian ad litem’s duty to file reports and testify regarding her recommendations 

relating to the best interests of the child and the reasons for the recommendations). 

The Advocate recommended that the Children remain in their current foster home 

until an adoptive home could be found for them. The Advocate argued to the court 

that the Mother had not established she could provide a safe environment for the 

Children. The Advocate’s report filed on August 21, 2014, the day of trial, also 

contained the same recommendations.

Caseworker Phillips testified the Children have no special needs and are 

“adoptable,” but the current foster home is not an adoptive foster home. The 

Department continues to search for an adoptive home. The Mother argues that 

termination is not in the Children’s best interest because the foster home in which 

the Children are placed is not an adoptive home. Plans for adoption are relevant, 
22

but evidence of definitive plans is not dispositive in a parental termination case 

filed by the State. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28.

5. Statutory Factors in Determining the Best Interest of the Children 

The Texas Family Code sets out factors to be considered in evaluating the 

parent’s willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe environment, 

including: (1) the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; (7) whether

there is a history of assaultive or abusive conduct by the family; (8) whether there 

is a history of substance abuse by the family; (10) the willingness and ability of the 

child’s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services and to 

cooperate with and facilitate an appropriate agency’s close supervision; (11) the 

willingness and ability of the child’s family to effect positive environmental and 

personal changes within a reasonable period of time; and (12) 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, 

and an understanding of the child’s needs and capabilities. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 

263.307(b) (West 2014); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116.

The evidence recited above also supports the court’s best-interest finding 

based on the statutory factors for evaluating whether the Mother is willing and able 

to provide the Children with a safe environment, which is presumed to be in their 

best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307 (West 2014). The Children are 

young and dependent on their caregiver to provide for their needs. See id. at (b)(1). 

The Department presented evidence of the Mother’s inability to protect the 

Children. The Mother’s lack of a stable home and her failure to stop the abusive 

behavior that the Children were exposed to before entering foster care supports the 

finding that the Mother is unable to provide the Children with a safe environment. 

See id. at (b)(7), (12). The Mother also has a history of abusing illegal drugs. See 

id. at (b)(8). A pattern of illegal drug use supports the conclusion that the Mother 
23

was not willing and able to provide the Children with a safe environment. See P.W. 

v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 403 S.W.3d 471, 479 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2013), pet. dism’d). The Mother did not undergo psychological 

evaluation and counseling, as ordered by the court. See id. at (b)(10). The Children 

are behind in school and have had behavior problems. These issues are being 

addressed in foster care. In contrast, the Mother did not demonstrate an ability to 

parent the Children, had not seen that they were enrolled in school, or provided

them with a safe home environment. Any improvements that the Mother claimed to 

have made were very recent. See id. at (b)(11). Evidence of a recent improvement 

does not absolve a parent of a history of irresponsible choices. See In re J.O.A., 

283 S.W.3d at 346.

In sum, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the best-interest 

finding based on the Mother’s lack of a safe, stable home environment, lack of 

stable employment, noncompliance with services, and drug use, even while these 

proceedings were pending. It was within the trial court’s discretion to determine 

the weight and credibility of the Mother’s testimony. In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d 215, 

229–30 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied). The factfinder resolved all 

credibility issues and we may not disturb that determination. See In re H.R.M., 209 

S.W.3d at 108; In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 712.

* * *

Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we 

conclude that a factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that 

termination of the Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. See

J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 265–66. In light of the entire record, the disputed evidence 

favoring termination that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited is not so 

significant that it would prevent the factfinder from forming a firm belief or 

conviction that termination of the Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best 
24

interest. See In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at 108. After considering the relevant 

factors under the appropriate standards of review, we hold the evidence is legally 

and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of the 

parent-child relationship is in the Children’s best interest. We therefore overrule 

the Mother’s sole issue.

IV. CONCLUSION

We have determined that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports

the trial court’s finding that termination of the Mother’s parental rights is in the 

best interest of the Children. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

/s/ J. Brett Busby

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown.