Opinion filed June 21, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-17-00362-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.C. AND S.A.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC2-16-074-PC

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

This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental 

rights of the mother and father of A.R.C. and S.A.C. Each parent filed a notice of

appeal, and each parent presents eight issues for appellate review. In most of the 

issues, the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination. 

The mother additionally asserts that the trial court improperly based its decision on 

the parents’ economic situation. We affirm.

I. Termination Findings and Standards

The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing 

evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b) (West Supp. 2017). To determine if 
2

the evidence is legally sufficient in a parental termination case, we review all of the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determine whether a rational 

trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. 

In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). To determine if the evidence is 

factually sufficient, we give due deference to the finding and determine whether, on 

the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about 

the truth of the allegations against the parent. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25–26 (Tex. 

2002). To terminate parental rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent has committed one of the acts listed in 

Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)–(U) and that termination is in the best interest of the child. 

FAM. § 161.001(b). 

With respect to the best interest of a child, no unique set of factors need be 

proved. In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied). 

But courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. 

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not 

limited to, (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) the 

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 that 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. Id. 

Additionally, evidence that proves one or more statutory grounds for termination 

may also constitute evidence illustrating that termination is in the child’s best 

interest. C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d at 266. 
3

In this case, the trial court found that each parent had committed three of the 

acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)—those found in subsections (D), (E), and (O). 

Specifically, the trial court found that the parents had knowingly placed or 

knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that 

endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being; that the parents had 

engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in 

conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being; and that 

each parent had failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically 

established the actions necessary for that parent to obtain the return of the children, 

who had been in the managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and 

Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of their removal from 

the parent for abuse or neglect. The trial court also found, pursuant to 

Section 161.001(b)(2), that termination of the parents’ parental rights would be in 

the best interest of the children.

II. Evidence at Trial

The record shows that the Department first became involved with the parents 

in July 2016 after a report of neglectful supervision of the children. During a followup visit, the Department’s investigator went to the RV where the family resided. The 

investigator described the RV as “unsanitary” and the children as dirty. Clothes and 

trash covered floor. There was no food in the RV, no sleeping area for the children, 

and no running water. A marihuana pipe was located on a shelf where it could be 

reached by the children, and the mother admitted to the investigator that the parents 

would test positive for methamphetamine if they were to drug test that day. The 

Department initiated a safety plan in which the mother and the children were to live 

with and be supervised by the mother’s father. Shortly thereafter, the mother left 

that house, and the Department proceeded with an emergency removal. At the time 

of removal, A.R.C. was of school age, but the parents had not enrolled him in school.
4

The parents had an ongoing history of neglectful supervision and drug use 

while the children were in their care. The parents’ use of drugs endangered the 

children. The record indicates that S.A.C. had tested positive for THC and 

methamphetamine at birth. The Department’s conservatorship worker noted that, 

based upon both parents’ positive drug tests after removal, ongoing drug use by the 

parents was still a concern at the time of trial. In addition, the parents had failed to 

provide a safe, stable home environment for the children. The parents moved from 

place to place and had been evicted shortly before the final hearing.

The children were placed with their maternal grandfather and his wife at the 

time of removal. The children remained there during the entirety of the case. The 

record reveals that the maternal grandfather wishes to adopt the children and that he

had already completed the licensing process at the time of trial. The maternal 

grandfather testified that the children were doing well in his home but that, earlier 

in the case when the parents were still visiting the children, the children acted up for 

a few days after the visits. The conservatorship worker testified that the children 

were doing well in the grandfather’s home and that the stability he provided was 

beneficial to the children.

The evidence showed that the children loved their parents and that the parents 

did not want their parental rights to be terminated. Nonetheless, the Department’s 

goal for the children was termination of the parents’ rights and adoption by the 

maternal grandfather. The Department’s investigator and the conservatorship

worker believed that it would be in the best interest of the children to terminate the 

parental rights of both parents.

III. Issues Presented and Analysis

In the mother’s first four issues and the father’s third through sixth issues, the 

parents challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

findings made by the trial court pursuant to subsections (D) and (E) of 
5

Section 161.001(b)(1). In the mother’s fifth issue and the father’s seventh and eighth 

issues, the parents challenge the finding made pursuant to subsection (O). In the 

mother’s sixth and seventh issues and in the father’s first and second issues, the 

parents challenge the best interest finding. In her eighth issue, the mother asserts 

that the trial court improperly based its decision on evidence that the mother was 

economically disadvantaged.

A. Findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)

In the mother’s third and fourth issues and the father’s fifth and sixth issues, 

the parents challenge the trial court’s findings under subsection (E). Under 

subsection (E), the relevant inquiry is whether evidence exists that the endangerment 

of the children’s well-being was the direct result of the parents’ conduct, including 

acts, omissions, or failures to act. In re D.O., 338 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2011, no pet.). Additionally, termination under subsection (E) must be 

based on more than a single act or omission; a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious 

course of conduct by the parent is required. In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 634 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied); In re K.M.M., 993 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex. 

App.—Eastland 1999, no pet.). The offending conduct does not need to be directed 

at the child, nor does the child actually have to suffer an injury. In re J.O.A., 283 

S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009). Drug use may constitute evidence of endangerment.

Id.

Here, the record contains clear and convincing evidence that both parents had 

engaged in drug use while the children were in their care and that the parents’ drug 

use endangered the children. Moreover, the Department presented evidence that the 

parents continued to use drugs while this case was pending. The evidence supports 

the trial court’s finding that the parents endangered the children’s physical or 

emotional well-being. Consequently, we hold that the evidence is legally and 

factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings under 
6

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). We overrule the mother’s third and fourth issues and the 

father’s fifth and sixth issues. 

Because a finding that a parent committed one of the acts listed in Section 

161.001(b)(1)(A)–(U) is all that is required and because we have held that the 

evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s findings under subsection (E), we 

need not address the mother’s first, second, and fifth issues or the father’s third, 

fourth, seventh, and eighth issues in which they challenge the findings made 

pursuant to subsections (D) and (O). See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. 

B. Best Interest of the Children

In the mother’s sixth and seventh issues and the father’s first and second 

issues, the parents challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the findings that termination of their parental rights would be in the best 

interest of their children. We hold that, based on clear and convincing evidence 

presented at trial and the Holley factors, the trial court could reasonably have formed 

a firm belief or conviction that termination of each parent’s parental rights would be 

in the best interest of the children. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72. Upon 

considering the record as it relates to the desires of the children, the emotional and 

physical needs of the children now and in the future, the emotional and physical 

danger to the children now and in the future, the parental abilities of the parents and 

the grandfather who wishes to adopt the children, the plans for the children by the 

Department, the instability of the parents’ home, the stability of the grandfather’s 

home, and the parents’ drug use, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support 

the finding that termination of each parent’s parental rights is in the best interest of 

the children. See id. We overrule the mother’s sixth and seventh issues and the 

father’s first and second issues. 

In her eighth issue, the mother argues that the best interest standard cannot be 

met by merely showing that she is economically disadvantaged and that the children 
7

would be better off living elsewhere. See FAM. § 161.001(c)(2); In re D.M., 58 

S.W.3d 801, 814 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). While we agree with the 

mother’s statement of the appropriate standard, we do not agree that the trial court 

based its findings on the parents’ economic situation or the mere fact that the children 

would be better off living with their grandfather. Although the conservatorship 

worker testified, “We’re looking at the best interest of the kids. Grandpa can provide 

and [mother] and [father] cannot,” she also testified that termination was in the best 

interest of the children based upon the parents’ drug use. Moreover, the trial court 

specifically found that its order of termination was “not based on evidence” that the 

parents were “economically disadvantaged.” We overrule the mother’s eighth issue. 

IV. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. 

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE

June 21, 2018

Panel consists of: Willson, J., 

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.