## In the Court of Ap p ea ls Second Appellate District o f Te xas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00218

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360

- 680224

- 20

Before Birdwell, Bass el, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### U.L. , A 

### C HILD2 ME MORANDUM OPINION
I
. I NT ROD UCTION Appellant U.L. (Father

) appeals the trial court ’ s order terminating his parental rights to his child U.L. (

Uriah ). 1 In two issues, Fat her contends the evidence w as insufficient to support termina tion under F amily Code Sec tion 161.001(b)(1) ( D ) a n d ( E)

. Bec au se we will hold that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to
support the conduct grounds, we will affirm the trial court ’ s term ination order.
I I. B ACKGROUND M.W. (Mother) gave birth to Uri ah in April 202 0

. 2 Both Uriah and Mother

test ed posi tive for cocaine at his birth , and later that month, the Depart ment of Family and Prot ective Services (the Department) sought and obtained an order naming it as Uriah ’ s temporary sole managing conservato r. Uriah was th en placed with a foster family.
Father was on notice in April 2020 that he might b e Uriah ’ s father , and paternity was confirmed by a DNA te st in July 2020. Although the DNA test confirmed his paternity, Fathe r admitte d to “ having s o me mental health iss u es ” at the
time and did not believe that Uriah was his child. According to Father, he

1 We use aliases to ref

e r to t he ch ild and the parties

. See Tex. F a m. Cod e Ann. § 109.0 02(d); Tex

. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2)

.

2 T h e trial co u rt ter m in ated Mother ’ s par ental right s to Uriah in the same or der te rm inating Father ’ s parental rights

. Mot her d oes not a ppeal.3

acknowledge d paternity later in 2020 when he “ stopped doing so many drugs and [his] mind was coming back. ”
Father ha s a history of mental

- h ealth problems

. When he was thirteen or fourteen, he was diagnose d with bipolar and schizoaffective disorder. Father testified
tha t he had been receiving mental health services “ on an d off ” ever since

. Fa ther ’ s mental

- health problems continued after U riah ’ s birth. Father testifie d that he had
received mental

- health treatment at ho spitals “ quite a few times ” since Uria h ’ s b irth.
He stated th at he had been placed in the hospitals becau se he “ wa s thinking peo ple were trying to kill [him] and following [him], and [he would ] leave the house
and

. . . go and sleep on the trains and end up in the hospi tal. ” Father also testified
that he had believed that “ CP S ” or “ the cartel ” was t rying to kill him whenever he

“ went to the CPS department. ” 3 Father stated t hat he was given prescriptions by the hospita ls for mental

- health treatment but that he had stopped taking the pr escribed
medications around the fall of 2020

. W hen asked wh y he had stopped , Father stated,

“ I was underg oing, like, you know , acut e psy chosis. I was in the grip of t hat a nd I
don ’ t know. I was on drugs at the time as well, so . . . . ” Father also has a history of illegal drug use that ex acerbates his mental

- health
p roblems

. Father testified that he started using mar ijuana when he was eight or nine

3 Father testified t hat h e began to be less p aranoid about being killed by “ CPS ” or “ the cartel ” when he “ just didn ’ t care anymore. ” He stated, “ I was like whate ver. What ’ s going to happen, is going to happen. ”4

and that his us age w as “ [ a ] ll day, every day [,] [ a

] s much as [he ] could consume. ” 4 He
said that he first ex perimented with cocain e in the 1980s but that he “ s tuck with it in
2006. ” He described his cocaine usage as “ $20 a night for years and years

. . . but if [he was] with a female t hat does a l ot of drug s, [he wou ld] end up doing a lot more. ”
Father testified t hat he ha d started using meth amphetamines when he was “ in [his]
40 ’ s . ” 5 He also stated that his longest stretch of sobriety was seven years. Father
testified that h e experienced side effects from taking illega l drugs, including paranoia , i nsomni a, and hallucinations.
Father ’ s illegal drug use continued after Uria h ’ s bir th. Father t estified that in
Oc tob er 2020, he was taken to a hospital because “ som ebody gave [hi m] some K 2 and [he ] almost died

. . . . ” 6 Father state d that he thought that someone was trying to poison him and that this incident was “ part of the pl ot ” t o kil l him. Father also
testified that he had broken his ankle in July 2020 , and he had obtained pain

4 Father was fifty

- fou r years old when Uriah was born, and Fat her w as fifty

- six years old at the tim e of trial

.

5 As for hi s us e of methamphetamines, Fathe r ’ s testimony was unclear . He testi fied that he had been using it “ [n]ot long. Probably four or five months, six mon ths. I mean, if you put it all

— I might ’ ve u sed i t every day for years, but I ’ ve never used a lot. I ’ ve always

— I ’ ve nev er did a lot of drugs. ”

6 K2 is a synt hetic marijuana or a synthetic cannabi noid. See In re E.M. , 494 S. W.3d 209, 223 n.2 (Te x. App.

— Waco 2 015, pet. denied) ( “K2 is a commonly used name for synthetic marijuana, a controlled substance that is unl awful to possess. ”); In re Z.M. , 456 S. W.3d 677, 682 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015, no pet.) ( “K2 is a synthetic cannabinoid drug that has a halluc inogenic effect when s moked. ”).5

medications “ off the street ” without a prescrip tion. When asked what pain

me dications he had obtained “ off the street, ” Father said, “ [A]nyt hing I could get, really. ” Father was l ater asked why he did not receive pain me dications prescribed by a phy s ician, and Father explai ned that “ at the time [he] was having psychological problems, and [he] was thinking the doctors were trying to d o something to [ him]. ”
In November 2020 , Leigh Ann Flor es , a permanency specialist contracted by the Department, spok e with Father ab out his d rug use. Father admitted to Flores that
he had used cocaine that month a nd that when he used c ocaine , “ meth must be in the
cocaine

. ” During that conver sation, Fathe r als o told Flores that he was using marijuana but that he was tr ying to s top. At trial, Flores described a super vised visit
she had with Father an d Uriah in November 2020 , where Fa ther was on the floor
with Uriah , and Father told her that he had forgotten that he had an OxyContin pill in his pocket and that he was goi n g to take it. 7 F ather told F lores that he did not have a prescription for the pill but that he had “ got if off the streets. ” 8 Flores also testified
that Father had tested positive for met hamphetamines in October or Nove m ber 20 20.
She also testified tha t Father had tested posit ive for marijuana in December 2 020. 9

7 Flores requested that Father not take the pill , and Father complied.

8 During his testi mony at trial, Father sa id that Flores ’ s testimony r egardi ng the p ill was a “ complete fabrication. ”

9 During a visit with Flores in Decembe r 2020, Father to ld her that his December 2 020 dru g test was negative , bu t Flores ha d to remind him that the test was6

Fat her testified that he had stopped using m arijuana, methamphetamines, and cocaine
sometime around the De cember 2020 test re sult.
O ne p ossible explanation for why Father was able to stop his use of illegal drugs after the December 2020 test result was that he was arrested in January 2021 and spent the next six months incarcerated. 10 Father is no stranger to the crimi n al justic e system
. At trial, Father admitted that he ha d over ten convictio ns in California , including a conviction for infl icting corporal injury on a spou se or cohab itant and two

conv ictions for willf

ul cruelty to a child causing injury. Fath er explained at trial that
the conviction for inflic ting corporal injury on a spouse o r c ohabitant and the
convictions fo r wil l ful c ruelty to a child causing injury stem med from the same
incident. Father stated that during that incident , he got i nto an argument with the
mother of one of his children w ho had a child in her vehicl e. Father testified that the
woman accused him of having sex with his si ste r and kicked him. He then “ tried to pull her out of the car ” a nd “ tr[ied] t o t ear her head off because she [had] kicked [him]. ” 11 Father explained that during the argu ment with the wom an , he took the
positive for marijua na. Father then admitted t o Flores that he was still using marijuana

.

10 The re cord reflects that Father was placed in a mental

- health unit during at least part o f his incarcer ation. Father admitted at trial that he “ was kind of off [his] rockers ” when he began his incarce ration

.

11 When Flores asked Father about th is incident, Father told her that the woman

“ kicked him so he pulled the car over and took the bitch out of the car and wanted to kic k her face in. ”7

child out of the ve hicle and set the c hild down “ 15 feet ” from the woman . Father
averred that “ [t]here wa s no in jury to the child. ” 12
Father ’ s criminal activities continued after Uriah ’ s birth, leading to his arrest
and incarceration in January 202 1. In this regard, Father was convicted of the following offenses that occurred after Uriah ’ s birt h : (1 ) theft of less than $2,500 with two or more previous theft offenses for stealing “ clothing item s, pens, a cable, headphones, a st ereo, and a d r ink ” on July 13, 2020 ; (2) th eft of less than $2,500 wi th

two or more previous theft offenses for stealing “ a computer, clothi ng, and health and beauty products ” on July 2 3, 2020 ; and (3) theft of less than $2,500 with two or m ore previ ous theft o ffen ses for stealing “ clothing , electronics, light bulb s[ ,] and infant products ” on September 24 , 2020

. Flores testified that she set up a service plan for Father and gave it to him
around Octob er 2020

. 13 Flores al so testified tha t Fat her had not substan tially

co mpl ied with his service plan. She testified that Father ’ s service plan required that he receive drug treatment but that Father had told her during their most recent visit that
he was “ not going to do any dru g tre atme nt ” and that “ he does not care what anybod y says, including the Court. ” Father testified that he did not believe that he

12 Fat her testified that he was incarc er ated f or “ almost three years ” as a result of this incident

.

13 Father testified that he fir st saw the service plan in January 2021, when he was i ncarcerated. Father a lso admitted that “ [a] lot of times [he] would forget completely
a bout the services plan ” beca use of his mental

- health issues.8

needed to follow “ s omebo dy ’ s sy stem ” re garding drug tr eatment but that he could and had quit using illegal drugs by f ollow ing his own “ system. ” Flores also testifi ed
that Fath er was a sked to participate in individual counseling and that while he had started counseling , he did not complete it. Father testified t hat he did not need counseling. Fat her explained that he did not require any assistance with coping skill s because he had been coping and that “ [i]f you ’ re in the grips of psychosis, y ou h earing
voices and seeing things and believing things, the coping was just to deal with it and go da y by day without trying to hurt nobody and ru nning up on people. So that ’ s the coping right there. ” At trial, Father t estified that he had stopped using illegal drugs , that he plan n ed to stay on his current mental

- health medicatio ns , and that he was not experiencing any symptoms of his bipolar and schizoaffective dis order

. F ollowing the July 2021 ter mination hearing

— which took place one month
after Father ’ s incarceration en ded

— the trial court issued a ruling ter minat ing Father ’ s parental rights to Uriah under Subsection s ( D) and (E) of Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) and f

i nding that s uch termination was in Uriah ’ s best interest. Father appeals from that terminat ion order.
I II. D ISCUSSION
In t wo i ssues , Father argues that the evidence was in sufficient to support termination under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)( D) and ( E).9

A. St andard o f Review
For a trial cou rt t o ter minate a par ent

– child relationsh ip, t he pa rty seeking

ter minat ion must prove two elements by clear and convincing evidence: ( 1) that the
parent ’ s act

ions satisfy one ground listed in Famil y Cod e Section 161.001(b) (1); and ( 2 ) that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.00 1(b);
In re E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. 2012); In re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d 79 , 84 (Tex. 2005). Evidence is clear an d convincing if it “ wil l pro duce in the mind of the trier of
fact a firm b elief or conviction as to the truth of the allegati ons sought to be
established. ” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007; E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d at 802.
T o determine wheth er the evidence is legally sufficient in pare ntal

- termination

cases , we lo ok at all the evidence in the light most favorable t o the challenged
find ing s
— here the endangerment findings under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(

D) and (E)

— to de termine whether a reasonable fact finder could for m a firm beli ef or conviction that the finding is true. In re J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 ( Tex. 2005) ; see Tex. Fa m. Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)( D), (E)

. We assume th at the
fact f inder settled any evidentiary conflicts in favor of its finding if a reasonable
fact finder could have done s o. J.P.B. , 180 S.W .3d at 5 73

. We disregard all evidenc e th at a reasonable fact finde r co uld have disbelieved, and we consider undispute d
evidence even if it is contrary to the finding. Id. That is, we consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact finder could , and we disregard contrary10

evide nc e unless a reasonable fact f in der could not. See id. The fact finder is the so le judg e of the witnesses ’ credibility and demeanor. In re J.O.A. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009). We must perform “ an exacting review of th e enti re record ” in determining t he factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of a parent

– ch ild
rel ationship. In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 2014). Nevertheless, we give due
deference to the fact finder ’ s finding s and do not s upplant them with our own. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105 , 108 (Tex. 2006). Here, w e review the whole record to
decide whet her a fact fi nder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the Dep artment proved the endangerment ground s . See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) (1)(D), ( E) ; In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002). If the fact finder reasonably could form such a firm convic ti o n or belief, then the evidence is factually
sufficient. C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19.
B. Law on Endangerment Subsections (

D ) a nd ( E) of Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) provide that the
trial court may order the termination of a pa rent ’ s rights if i t fi nds by clear and

con vincing evidenc e that a parent has (D) kn owingly p laced or knowingly allowed the child to remain i n condi t ions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well

- being of the chil d ; [ or ]11

(E) engaged in conduct or kno wi n gly placed the child with persons wh o engaged in co nduct w hich endangers the physical or emotional well

- being of the chil d [

. ]
T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E)

. “Endange r ” means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopardize. Tex. Dep ’ t of
Hu ma n Se rvs. v. Boyd

, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); In re J. T.G. , 121 S.W.3d 117,
125 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)

. Unde r S ubsection 161.001(b)(1)(D), it is
necessary to exa mine the evidence related to the environment of the child to
determine if t h e e nvironment was the source of the enda ngerment to the ch ild ’ s physical or emotional well

- being. J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 1 25. Co n duct of a parent in
the home can creat e an environment that endangers the physical and emotional well

being of a child. Id

. As an example, “ abus ive or violent condu ct by a parent or other
resid ent of a child ’ s home may produce an environment tha t endang e rs the p hysical

or emotional well

- being of a child. ” Id

. Illegal drug use by the parent and drug

related criminal activity by the parent “ likew i se supports the conclusion that the
chi ldren ’ s surroundings endanger their physi cal or emotional well

- being. ” Id

. Under Subsection 161.001(b)(1)( E) , the relevant inquiry is whe th e r e vidence exists that the endangerment of the child ’ s phy sical well

- being was the direct result of the parent ’ s conduct, includi ng acts, omissions, or fail ures to act. See id. ; see al so Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (E)

. Termination under Sub sec ti o n ( E) must be based on more than a single act or omission; a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious

cou rse of conduct by th e parent is required. J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125

. It is not12

nec essary, however , that the parent ’ s co nduct be directed at the chi ld or tha t the child actually suffer injury. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d a t 533; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 125. The specific danger to a chi l d ’ s wel l

- bei ng may be inferred from parental misconduct standin g al one. In re R.W. , 129 S.W.3d 732, 73 9 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2004 , p et. denied).

“ As a general rule, conduc t that subjects a c hild to a life of uncertainty and instab ility endangers th e phy s ical an d emotional w ell

- being of a child. ” Id.
Addi tionally, a parent ’ s mental sta te may be considered in determining wh e th e r

a child is endangered if that mental state allows the pa rent to engage in conduct jeopardizing the child ’ s physical or e motiona l well

- being. In re M.E.

- M.N. , 342 S.W.3d 254, 262 (Tex. App.

— Fo rt Worth 2011, pet. denied) ; R.W. , 129 S.W.3d at 739.

“ Untreated ment al ill ness can exp ose a child to endangerment

. . . and is a factor the court may consider ” in its e ndangerment analysis. In re S.R

. , 452 S.W.3d 351, 363 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Indeed, “ [ m ] ental health issues
that are frequently untreated, esp ecially when combined with delusions, hallucinations, a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, and an unwillingness or inability to appreciate the consequences of f

ail ing t o treat those issues, can present a su bstantial risk to a
child ’ s safet

y. ” In re L.M.F. , No. 02

- 1 3

- 00459

- CV, 2014 WL 2465137, at *14 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 29, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.)

. Illegal drug use and its effect on a parent ’ s life a nd his ability to parent may establish an endangering course of conduct. R.W. , 129 S.W.3d at 739

. Criminal activity that exposes a parent to incarceration may also endanger a child. In re I.L. ,13

No. 02

- 18

- 00206

- CV, 2018 WL 5668813, at *5 ( Tex. App.

— For t Worth Nov. 1, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); In r e A.N.D. , No. 02

- 12

- 00394

- CV, 2013 WL 362753, at *2 (Te x. App.

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

. “ Domestic violence,
want of self [

- ] co ntrol, and propensity for violence may [also ] be considered a s evidence o f e n dan germent. ” In re J.I.T.P. , 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1 4 th Dist.] 2003, no pet. ). We may consider conduct that oc curred outside the child ’ s presence in our
review. Walker v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Family & Protective Servs. , 312 S. W. 3d 608, 617 (T e x. App.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). We may also look at parental conduct
both before and after the child ’ s birth to de termine whether termination is necessary.
R.W. , 12 9 S.W.3d at 738; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 1 25 . Further, a f at her ’ s conduct before paternity is established may be considered as evidence of an end angering
course of conduct. R.W. , 1 29 S.W.3d at 738

. C. Endangerment Analysis
Becau se th e evidence pertaining to Subsec tions ( D) and (E) is in terrelated, we conduct a consolidated review. In re S. H. , No. 02

- 17

- 00188

- CV, 2017 WL 4542859, at *10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth Oc t. 12, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op .); In re T.N. S. , 230 S.W.3d 434, 4 39 (Te x. A pp.

— San Antonio 2007, no pet.). Here, t he re cord refl ects that Father ’ s ment al

- health issues , illegal dr ug use, and
criminal activity have been a persistent problem in h is life and that these issues have continued past Uriah ’ s birth

. As to his mental

- h ealth issues, the record reflects that14

Fath er was diagnosed with b i polar and sc hi zoaffective d isorder in his youth and that he has been receiving mental health services “ on and off ” for over forty years. The
record further reflects that after Uriah ’ s birth , Father received mental

- health treatment

“ quite a few times ” because he thoug ht that p eople were t rying to kill him

. These thoughts ca used him to leave his home and t o sleep on trains, eventu ally winding up
in the ho spital. The record also refle cts that for a period a fter Uriah ’ s birth, Fa ther stopped taking his pres cribed mental

- h ealth medications

. Finally, the record reflects
that Father ’ s mental

- health issues are exacerbated by his illegal drug use. As to his illegal drug use, the record reflects that Father h as u sed marijuana
si nce he was eight or nine , and he described hi s usage as “ [ a ] ll day, every day [,] [ a

] s much as [he] could consume. ” The record further reflects that Father has been a long

- time user of coca ine and that he also has a history of meth amphetami ne use. Since U riah ’ s birth, Father has tested positive for me thamphetamines and marijuana , and he has admitted to using cocaine, methampheta mines, and marijuana during that
time

. Additionally, s ince Uriah ’ s birt h, F ather h as been hospital ized due to his use of K2, a synthetic marijuana , and he has taken pain medi ca tions that he obtained “ off the

streets
. ” The record also reflect s t hat d uring a supervised vis it with Uriah, Father had

an unp resc ribed OxyContin pill in his pocket when he was playing on the flo or with
Uriah. Finally, the record reflects that Father di d not re ceive the required drug treatment under his service plan and that he did not believe that he needed to follow15

“ s omeb ody ’ s system ” regarding dru g treatment but that he could quit using illegal drugs by f ollowing his own “ system. ”
As to his crim in al activity, t he record reflects that Father has over ten criminal convictions in California, including a co nvic tion for infl icting corpora l injury on a
spou se or cohabitant and two conv ictions for willf

ul cruelty to a child causing injury.
The record f

ur ther reflects that Father has continued to engage in criminal activity following Uriah ’ s birth. Apa rt from h is use of illegal drugs following Uriah ’ s birth , Father has also been convicted of three theft offenses during that time and was
incarcerated for s ix months due to th o se convictions.
In his brief, Father argues that the termination tri al focused too much on his
past behavior and that the record reflect s that he “ took advantage of his second
chance whi le [Uriah] was in foster care. ” We disagree. While the record does cont ain
much eviden ce of F ather ’ s me ntal

- health is sues, ill egal drug use, and criminal activities
before Uriah ’ s birth, as detailed above, the record further reflects Father ’ s mental

health issues since Uriah ’ s birth, Father ’ s illeg al dr ug use since U riah ’ s birth, and
Father ’ s enga ging in criminal activi t ies since Uriah ’ s birth. Moreover, in our review, we may consider parental conduct be fore a child ’ s birth. See R.W. , 12 9 S.W.3d at 738; J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 1 25

. Finally, Father s eems to em phasize t hat many of his issues had su bsided by the
time of th e July 2021 trial and that he was working on his issues by following his

“ system. ” But Father fails to take into account

— as the factfind er reasonably could16

have

— that Father had been i ncarcerated between Januar y 2021 and June 2021 and
that the success of Father ’ s “ system ” could have been simply due to the fact that
Father was inca rcerated during much of that time . Moreover, “ e ven if a parent makes dramatic improvement s before trial, ‘ evidence of improv ed cond uct, especially of
short

- duration, does not conclusively negate the probati ve value of a long history
of

. . . irresponsible choices. ’ ” In re A.J.M. , 375 S.W.3d 599, 606 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied) (op. on reh ’ g ) (qu oting J.O.A. , 283 S .W.3d a t 346).
Vie wing al l the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial co urt ’ s jud gment and recognizing that the fac t finder is the sole arbiter of the witnesses ’
credib ility and demeanor, we hold that there is some evidence of an endangering
envi ronment o n which a rea sonable f act finder c ould have formed a firm b elief or

c on viction t hat Father had k nowingly placed o r ha d knowingly allow ed Uriah to remai n in conditions or surroundings that had endangered Uri a h ’ s emotional or physi cal well

- being and that th er e is some evidence of endangering con duct on which
a reasonable fact finder coul d have formed a firm belief o r conviction that Father had engaged in cond u ct that had endanger ed U riah ’ s physical or emotional well

- being. See
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 16 1.001(b )( 1) ( D), (E )

. Giving d ue deferenc e to the fact finder ’ s endangering

- environment and endangering

- condu ct findings, without su pplantin g the fa ct finder ’ s judgment with our own, and after reviewing the enti re record, we hold that a f act finder co ul d rea sonably
f orm a fir m conviction or belief t hat Father had k nowingly placed or had knowing ly17

allowed Uriah to remain in condi tions or surrou ndings that had endangered Uriah ’ s emotional or physical well

- being and that Father had engaged in conduct that had

en dangere d U riah ’ s p hysical or em oti onal wel l

- being. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) (1)(

D), ( E) ; In re M.A.P. , No. 02

- 11

- 00484

- CV, 2012 WL 2036457, at *8

– 10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 7, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( finding eviden ce

su fficient to su ppo rt e ndangerment when mot her used marijuana during the pendency of the Department ’ s case despite knowing that it exacerbated her schiz ophrenia , used marijuana around infant, and failed to take her mental

- health medication s ); J. I.T.P. , 99 S. W.3d at 845 (c onsider ing mother ’ s ment al stat e, her history of noncompliance
with her med ication s , and domestic violence as factor s endangering the child ’ s well

being); In re C.D. , 664 S.W.2d 851, 8 53 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 198 4, no writ) (finding evid ence sufficient to support endangerment when mothe r wa s on medication for paranoid schizophrenia at the ti me of trial, had been violent in the past
because of her mental

- health issues, had been hospitalized over twenty times, and h ad
dest royed property and atte mpted to steal a heli copter).
We overrule Fat her ’ s two issue s . IV. C ONCLUSION Having overruled Father ’ s two issues, we affirm the trial court ’ s termination
order.18 /s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Justice
Deli vered: Novem ber 10, 202 1