NUMBER 13-23-00583-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.K.R., A CHILD

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 135TH DISTRICT COURT

OF VICTORIA, COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant C.R. (Mother) appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her 

child Z.K.R.1 Mother argues that the evidence is insufficient to support: (1) the statutory 

termination grounds, and (2) that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

1 To protect the identity of minor children in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, 

parents and children are referred to by their initials or an alias. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d).
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. Pretrial Proceedings

Mother has six children, including Z.K.R., who was four years old at the time of 

trial. According to the affidavit in support of emergency removal, on May 30, 2022, 

appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department), received 

a referral stating that Z.K.R. was in the hospital having sustained second degree burns to 

his feet and ankles, burns to the back of his legs, bruising to his body and face, and “first 

degree burns to his genital[s] with suspicious bruising to his shoulders and back.” The 

following day, Department Investigator Jazzmion Owens met with Mother at the hospital 

where Z.K.R. was med-flighted to for care. According to the affidavit, Mother informed 

Owens that Z.K.R. was not in Mother’s care when he sustained his injuries, and that 

Mother’s cousin D.L. was babysitting at the time. Mother confirmed that her parental rights 

to her four older children were terminated due to her history of drug use. The affidavit 

stated that Mother was aware that D.L. had a history of child abuse and drug abuse. 

Special Investigator Monica Cervera spoke with Z.K.R.’s maternal grandmother, S.M., at 

the hospital and was informed that Z.K.R. was with D.L. beginning Thursday May 26, 

2022 and was returned to Mother’s care on Monday May 30, 2022, after having sustained 

his injuries. Cervera also spoke with Mother, who informed her that she did not know 

where D.L. lived, or where Z.K.R. slept or how he was cared for when he was with D.L. 

Mother admitted to methamphetamine use. After the long weekend D.L. returned Z.K.R. 

to Mother and informed her that Z.K.R. had been burned in the bath. A.R., the alleged 
3

father,

2 informed Holly Hamilton, a Department caseworker, that he told Mother not to 

“let [D.L.] have his son” because of how Z.K.R. responded when near D.L., which he 

described as “screaming like he saw a boogie man.”

On June 2, 2022, D.L. was interviewed by Hamilton at the Victoria County Sheriff’s 

Office after having been detained on a drug charge. D.L. informed Hamilton that Z.K.R 

sustained his burns in the bath, explaining that she left Z.K.R. alone for “five to [ten]

minutes” and she heard him scream. When she went to check on him, the hot water was 

on. The Department affidavit stated:

[D.L.] stated the bathtub faucet was turned down and to the left which 

indicated that the hot water was on. She reported he would not come to her. 

He was sitting in water that was up to his naval. She made him stand and 

she took him to her bed. While enroute to the bed, [Z.K.R.] hit his head on 

the doorframe causing a red mark to his left temple area. She denies 

knowledge of any other bruising. [D.L.] stated she observed blisters to form 

after 2-3 minutes. She would pop the blisters and then apply peroxide and

a spray on antibiotic. At 1:00 am she checked him again. More blisters had 

formed, and she popped those and repeated the same treatment with 

peroxide and spray on antibiotic. [D.L.] stated she returned the child home 

to [Mother] on Monday, May 30, 2022[,] at roughly 11 am. She advised the 

mother that the child had been burned and to “put cream on it.”

D.L. also admitted to a prior criminal history involving selling drugs. She stated she also 

gave Mother drugs, including “methamphetamines and Xanax whenever” Mother asked 

for them.

The Department received a forensic assessment from Center for Miracles which 

concluded that Z.K.R.’s injuries “provide[d] substantial evidence of physical abuse” and 

2 Mother indicated that there were two men who could possibly be Z.K.R.’s father, one of which 

was A.R., the father of her four older children. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed that A.R. was not Z.K.R.’s

father. The other possible father is deceased, and no DNA testing was performed to determine if he was 

Z.K.R.’s father.
4

“concern for medical neglect due to his poor dentition.” The hospital’s social worker, 

Robyn Gambrel, also informed the Department that Mother “will let patient cry in the bed 

while she sleeps on the couch,” “Mother didn’t feed patient dinner” after Z.K.R. told her 

he was hungry, and Mother left Z.K.R. in soiled diapers, informing the nurses that she did 

not know how to change him.

Given Mother’s prior history with the Department, her consistent drug use, and the 

injuries sustained by Z.K.R. as well as the reports from the forensic assessment and 

Gambrel, the Department sought removal and temporary managing conservatorship of 

Z.K.R. alleging “physical abuse and danger to the health and safety of the child,” which 

was granted by the trial court. Temporary orders were put into place regarding Mother’s 

visitation. Subsequently, a family plan of service was created for Mother and was adopted 

by order of the court.

B. Trial Record

Cervera testified that she was sent to the hospital regarding a child, Z.K.R., as to

whom the Department had received allegations of physical abuse and neglectful 

supervision. When she met with Mother at the hospital, Mother stated that Z.K.R. had 

been in the care of D.L. from Thursday until Monday and had sustained the injuries when 

he was with D.L. Mother did not have an address for D.L. nor did she know anything about 

D.L.’s residence. Mother admitted to Cervera that she had used methamphetamine “at 

least three days before the incident” and had been using methamphetamine for 

approximately one year. Cervera further explained that Mother did not immediately bring 

Z.K.R. to the hospital when D.L. returned him to Mother. Mother explained to Cervera that 
5

she waited for transportation and “didn’t want to call 911.” Cervera stated that Mother 

informed her that when Z.K.R. was returned to her care, she saw his burns on his feet, 

but did not notice the additional burns and bruising. Cervera also met with Z.K.R. while 

he was in the hospital. She took photographs of his injuries which were admitted into 

evidence. The photographs depict the severe burns, bruises, and injuries on Z.K.R.’s 

body.

Cervera explained that Mother was uncertain who Z.K.R.’s father was, stating that 

there were two potential men who could have been his father—A.R., the father of her 

other children, or another man who had died in prison. When she spoke to A.R., he told 

Cervera that he had told Mother not to let D.L. take care of Z.K.R. because Z.K.R. was 

not comfortable with D.L.

Hamilton testified that, as the Department investigator assigned to the case, she 

received a report of the allegations involving Z.K.R.’s injuries. Hamilton explained that 

Mother had four children prior to Z.K.R. who had all been removed from her care with her 

rights terminated. She was able to speak with A.R. and D.L. during her investigation. 

Through her investigation, Hamilton learned that D.L. had an “extensive criminal history” 

which included assault and drug charges. D.L. also had history with the Department, 

having had her own children removed. At the time of Hamilton’s investigation, D.L. had 

been arrested for manufacture and delivery of drugs. When Hamilton met with D.L. in the 

county jail, D.L. explained that Z.K.R. “caused [the injuries] to himself when he had turned 

the hot water on in the bathtub.” As to the mark on his head, D.L. explained that “when

she picked him up out of the bathtub and was carrying him,” she “accidentally struck his 
6

head on the door frame.” She did not seek medical attention for Z.K.R.; instead, she 

attempted to treat the injuries herself by popping the blisters and using peroxide to clean 

the wounds and burn spray. D.L. also informed Hamilton that she would provide drugs to 

Mother, Mother would use drugs when Z.K.R. was home and she had seen drugs in 

Mother’s home.

Mother was drug tested during the course of Hamilton’s investigation and was 

positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Hamilton observed that Mother was 

inattentive to Z.K.R. at the hospital, not feeding him when he was hungry and stating she 

did not know how to change his diaper when it was dirty. Hamilton attempted to place 

Z.K.R. with family, but neither A.R., A.R.’s mother, nor Mother’s uncle could care for him. 

No additional family members were offered as options. At the conclusion of her 

investigation, D.L. was “validated for medical neglect and physical abuse” and Mother 

was “validated for neglectful supervision.”

Jennifer Garcia, the permanency specialist assigned to the case, testified that DNA 

testing ruled out A.R. as the father of Z.K.R. B.M. was the other potential father, but he 

was deceased when the investigation was ongoing. At the time of trial, Garcia testified 

that paternity was unknown. When Garcia was assigned to the case, there was a family 

plan of service put in place for Mother, which was adopted by order of the trial court. As 

part of her service plan, Mother was required to: complete parenting classes, complete a 

drug and alcohol assessment and follow all recommendations thereafter, undergo a 

psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations thereafter, and attend 

counseling. Garcia explained that the barriers to reunification at the time included
7

Mother’s minimal participation in her service plan at the outset of the case and Mother’s 

subsequent incarceration. Mother entered a Substance Abuse Felony Offender Program 

(SAFP), as ordered by the court after violation of her probation. Prior to going into the 

SAFP, Mother “completed a psychological evaluation” and “completed a drug and alcohol 

assessment.” As a result of her psychological evaluation, it was recommended that 

Mother attend counseling, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes. Mother did 

not follow those recommendations. While several drug tests were requested, Mother only 

completed three drug tests, two of which were hair follicle tests which returned positive 

for methamphetamine. When asked about what efforts were made to get Mother to 

comply with her service plan, Garcia stated:

There [were] several referrals sent for a drug and alcohol assessment, 

which she did complete in February of 2023. There was multiple drug tests 

requested. She was told that parenting was held every Thursday at MidCoast. She agreed several times to go in for that parenting class and she

never did so. There [were] also referrals sent in to counseling at Jill O’Neill’s 

office here in Victoria. She was supposed to call them for scheduling, which 

she never did. She was also offered transportation to visitation[,] and she 

did not show up to many of those visits either.

Garcia stated that Mother would have benefitted from the parenting classes

because Mother had a history of neglectful supervision with her older children, and she 

admitted she did not know how to fully care for her own children. Garcia opined that 

Mother would have also benefitted from the recommended individual counseling as 

Mother reported a history of depression and bipolar disorder, as well as an admitted issue 

with substance abuse. Garcia testified that after Z.K.R. was removed from Mother’s care, 

Mother was still using drugs, even while pregnant with her sixth child. She did not follow 

through with her service plan, nor did she make any efforts to change her behaviors, until 
8

she was incarcerated. Mother had another child after Z.K.R.’s removal who is also the 

subject of a separate Department case. That child is currently placed alongside Z.K.R. 

Garcia explained that there were “no appropriate family members given by [Mother].” She 

also confirmed that Mother mentioned two potential relatives, S.M. and M.M., the mother 

and sister of the deceased potential father, B.M. Garcia stated that she was not given 

contact information for those individuals, but that Mother stated she would have them

contact her. She did not hear from them until long after Z.K.R. was placed in his current 

foster home. While S.M. and M.M. were informed that they could do an at-home DNA 

test, Garcia stated they did not follow through with that. Garcia did not believe placing 

Z.K.R. with S.M. and M.M. was in his best interest.

Garcia testified that Z.K.R. suffered a lot of trauma and has had night terrors 

following visitation with Mother. Z.K.R. told his foster parents that his Mother hurt him and 

was “very mean to him.” According to Garcia, Z.K.R. is fearful of Mother. Garcia did not 

believe that Z.K.R. could be safely reunified with Mother, in part because Mother allowed 

Z.K.R. to be babysat by someone “with extensive criminal history” and a history of neglect 

for her own children. As to Z.K.R.’s current placement, Garcia testified that all of his needs 

are being met. Z.K.R. is bonded to his foster family, he is in therapy and counseling, and 

is recovering well from his injuries. Garcia believed that Mother’s rights should be 

terminated.

On cross-examination, Garcia confirmed that Mother had been participating in 

services since she entered the SAFP facility three months prior to trial. Garcia agreed the 

steps Mother is taking are good steps, but also noted that they are required by the facility.
9

Bria Hill, the mobile case aid who supervised visitation between Mother and Z.K.R.,

testified that Mother’s visitation schedule was twice a month with Z.K.R., once face-toface and once virtually. Hill stated that Mother “missed 80 percent of her visits” and did 

not attempt to reschedule them. Hill said that Mother attempted to make excuses for 

missing, such as being unaware that a visit was scheduled or that she did not “know what 

virtual meant.” Hill transported Mother to one of her visits and stated that she was 

available to assist in transportation if Mother needed it.

Hill described one of the virtual visits between Mother and Z.K.R. as “concerning.” 

She explained that Z.K.R. did not want to participate, that he was covering his ears with 

his hands and hiding under his blankets. Mother asked Z.K.R. what was wrong, but he 

did not respond to her. Z.K.R. generally did not want to participate in the visits and after 

visits, he would “rush to the vehicle to his foster dad.” The visits never lasted the full hour, 

and Mother was often late. Based on her supervision of the interactions, Hill did not 

believe that Mother and Z.K.R. were bonded. Of the “maybe four” visits that occurred, 

only the one she described “caused her concern.” During the visit that caused her 

concern, Z.K.R. seemed to be fearful and his fear was visible in the other visits as well.

Susan White, the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) for Z.K.R., testified 

that Z.K.R. is doing very well in his placement. He attends play therapy and counseling. 

White explained that Z.K.R. has voiced his desire to stay with his foster parents. His 

youngest sibling is placed with him in the same home. Z.K.R. has an established, “safe, 

stable[,] and appropriate” routine in his current home. White stated that she believes that 

the current placement can meet Z.K.R.’s needs now and in the future. As the CASA 
10

advocate, she stated she believed it would be best to terminate Mother’s rights because 

Z.K.R. is “scared to death” to be with Mother and she believes that it would be detrimental 

to Z.K.R. to return to Mother’s care.

White did not see any changes in Mother’s behavior prior to going to the SAFP

facility. Mother had not “acknowledged her role in this case” as it related to Z.K.R.’s 

injuries. White was concerned for Z.K.R.’s mental and physical health and safety in 

Mother’s care. White also observed the virtual visits with Mother and stated that there 

was no engagement and that Z.K.R. would “holler [‘]no, no, no, no, no.[’]”

Mother testified that D.L. had been babysitting Z.K.R. over the long weekend. She 

said D.L. had previously watched Z.K.R. and returned him with no injuries. Mother 

testified that, when Z.K.R. came home with the burns and bruises, “my mom and them 

rushed to the house and we immediately took him to the hospital.” Mother admitted that 

the weekend Z.K.R. was injured, she was “using at the time and [she] didn’t want to use 

around [Z.K.R.].” At the time of trial, she had been in the SAFP facility for three months, 

with six more months to complete. While in SAFP, she began participating in several 

groups. Mother testified:

I’m participating in Good Intentions, Bad Choices, which is good ways of

thinking and no bad choices in life. I’m also participating in Living in Balance. 

It’s about living in, it’s about living and doing the right thing in the right way. 

I’m also participating in Alcohol and Drug and the Brain. It’s, alcohol messes 

up the brain. I’m also participating in Orientation, which is slips and how to 

do things around in the dorm and how to become a big sister and a good 

peer at work.

I’m also participating in Cognitive Intervention. Also anger management, 

taking an action for the things I’m doing wrong and, Counter Group, we pull 

each other up on our negative behaviors. Process Group, open up and let

it all out instead of holding it all in.
11

She also attended narcotics and alcoholics anonymous meetings. She was required to 

participate in four groups a day. She was also on the list to attend parenting classes in 

the month following trial. Mother stated that she intended to continue the classes even 

after her release from the facility. Once released from the facility, Mother will reside in a 

halfway house for two months. She explained that, after that, she “want[s her] kids back” 

and to “be the best mother [she] can for [her] boys.” She stated that she is aware of the 

bad choices she has made that led to this case, and that she is trying not to make bad 

choices anymore.

Mother explained that D.L. is no longer part of her life and that she intends to 

surround herself with better people when she is released. She intends to find a job and a 

“good day care for the kids.” She explained that her plan was for Z.K.R. to reside with 

B.M.’s mother and sister until she was released. Mother testified that she gave the 

information for these individuals to the Department, but that the Department did not 

contact them. She also stated that Z.K.R. knows them and is comfortable with them, and 

that they were not strangers.

Mother testified that she has six children, including Z.K.R., and that her rights were 

terminated as to her four older children because of her drug use. Her brother adopted 

three of her older children, but her oldest was removed from her brother’s care because 

the child was “acting out.” She explained that the oldest child “[i]s in Houston somewhere.” 

Mother explained that D.L. had previously babysat Z.K.R. without incident and that she 

was unaware of D.L.’s own history with the Department. She did admit that she was aware 

that D.L. had been accused of beating her own children.
12

Mother disagreed with the characterization of how she behaved in the hospital, 

explaining that she fed her son when he was hungry, but that he had trouble eating 

because of his injuries. She stated she kept him safe in the bed and stayed by his side 

the whole time. She agreed that if he had not been left with D.L., Z.K.R. would not have 

suffered the injuries he sustained. She also stated that she knew her drug use caused 

her to leave him with D.L. and she “never knew [D.L.] was going to do something like that 

to [Z.K.R.].”

Mother admitted that D.L. had provided drugs to her in the past, specifically Xanax. 

She also admitted that she was ordered to participate in SAFP because she violated her 

probation. She explained that she did not work on her service plan prior to being ordered 

into the SAFP because she “was going through some things” and she felt “shocked.” She 

admitted to having used drugs while pregnant with Z.K.R.’s younger sibling, but she could 

not state whether the baby tested positive for drugs at birth. She stated that she did not 

want her rights terminated because she “deserve[s] another chance.” She admitted that 

her drug use was wrong, but she did not believe she endangered Z.K.R.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court granted the Department’s petition 

and signed an order terminating Mother’s rights. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(b)(D), (E), (O), & (P). This appeal followed.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In Mother’s sole issue she contends that the evidence failed to support each 

termination ground and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s bestinterest finding.
13

A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law

“Because the natural right between a parent and his child is one of constitutional 

dimensions, Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985), termination proceedings 

must be strictly scrutinized.” In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101, 112 (Tex. 2014). Due process 

requires that parental termination be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re 

S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576, 580 (Tex. 2014); In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d at 112. Clear and 

convincing evidence is “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; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264 (Tex. 

2002). To terminate parental rights, a court must find one of the grounds for termination 

specified in § 161.001(b)(1) of the family code and that termination is in the best interest 

of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1), (2).

In our legal sufficiency analysis, we must view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the finding, we “must assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in 

favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so,” and we “should disregard all 

evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been 

incredible.” In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting In re 

J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266). However, this does not mean that we must disregard all 

evidence that does not support the finding. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. Because of the 

heightened standard, we must also be mindful of any undisputed evidence contrary to the 

finding and consider that evidence in our analysis. Id. If we determine that no reasonable 

trier of fact could form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is 
14

true, we must hold the evidence to be legally insufficient and render judgment in favor of 

the parent. Id.

In a factual sufficiency review, “[w]e must determine whether, on the entire record, 

a fact-finder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the parent violated a 

provision of [§] 161.001[(b)](1) and that the termination of the parent’s parental rights 

would be in the best interest of the child.” In re M.C.T., 250 S.W.3d 161, 168 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002)). Under this 

standard, we consider whether the “disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder 

could not have resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its finding.” In re J.F.C., 96 

S.W.3d at 266. If we conclude that “the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder 

could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not 

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually 

insufficient.” Id.

B. Statutory Grounds

“To affirm a termination judgment on appeal, a court need uphold only one 

termination ground—in addition to upholding a challenged best interest finding—even if 

the trial court based the termination on more than one ground.” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 

230, 232–33 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). The Texas Supreme Court has held that, 

regardless of whether other grounds for termination are unchallenged on appeal, an 

appellate court must always review issues alleging the evidence was insufficient to 

support findings of endangerment under parts (D) or (E) of family code § 161.001(b)(1). 

In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 234, 237 (holding that “due process and due course of law 
15

requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of 

termination of parental rights” on endangerment grounds because an endangerment 

finding “becomes a basis to terminate that parent’s rights to other children” under 

§ 161.001(b)(1)(M)). Therefore, we will first address the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the trial court’s (D) & (E) findings.

Subsection 161.001(b)(1)(D) allows termination when the evidence proves by 

clear and convincing evidence that the parent “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the 

child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional 

well-being of the child,” and subsection 161.001(b)(1)(E) allows termination if the parent 

has “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.” TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E). “Subsection (D) addresses the child’s surroundings 

and environment rather than parental misconduct, which is the subject of subsection (E)”. 

In re A.L.H., 624 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.) (quoting In re B.C.S., 

479 S.W.3d 918, 926 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.)). Subsection (D) permits 

termination based on only a single act or omission. In re V.A., 598 S.W.3d 317, 329 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). In contrast, subsection (E) requires 

evidence of a “voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent” and 

generally more than a single act or omission. In re D.L.W.W., 617 S.W.3d 64, 78 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (quoting In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)).

“For both of these provisions, ‘endanger’ means ‘to expose to loss or injury; to 
16

jeopardize.’” Id. (quoting In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. 1996)). “Although 

‘endanger’ means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a 

less-than-ideal family environment, it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the 

child or that the child actually suffers injury.” Id. “It is enough if the youth is exposed to 

loss or injury or his physical or emotional well-being is jeopardized.” Id. (quoting In re 

P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.)). “As a general rule, 

conduct that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the physical 

and emotional well[-]being of a child.” In re S.A., 665 S.W.3d 59, 70 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

2022, pet. denied) (first citing In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 503 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2009, no pet.); and then citing In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2004, pet. denied)).

A parent’s use of narcotics and its effect on her ability to parent may qualify as an 

endangering course of conduct. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009). 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. In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 

351, 361 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (citing 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)). “Because the inquiry under both subsections 

D and E includes the conduct of the parent, evidence of criminal conduct, convictions, or 

imprisonment is relevant to a review of whether a parent engaged in a course of conduct 

that endangered the well-being of the child.” Id. at 360–61 (citing A.S. v. Tex. Dep’t of 

Family & Protective Servs., 394 S.W.3d 703, 712–13 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.)).
17

The trial court’s subsection (D) and (E) findings are adequately supported by the 

evidence in the record. The record shows that Mother has been struggling with drug 

addiction for years. Mother was in a court-ordered treatment facility at the time of trial and 

she had previously had her rights terminated to her four older children because of her 

drug abuse. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345. There was also evidence that Mother 

continued her drug use after Z.K.R.’s removal, having had positive drug tests and by her 

own admission. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 361.

The Department’s caseworkers also testified about their concerns that Mother was

not participating in her court-ordered services until her placement in the SAFP. A parent’s 

efforts to improve or enhance parenting skills are relevant in determining whether a 

parent’s conduct results in endangerment under subsection (E). See In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 

625, 640 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied). Further, the evidence before the trial 

court showed that Mother made the decision to spend a long weekend using 

methamphetamines instead of caring for her child. Mother chose to allow D.L. to babysit 

Z.K.R. while Mother was using drugs. By Mother’s own admission, she was aware that 

D.L. had a history of abusing her own children, yet Mother allowed Z.K.R. to remain in 

D.L.’s care for a period of several days, without checking on his well-being. See In re 

J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345.

Considering the entire record, including evidence both supporting and 

contradicting the trial court’s findings, we conclude that the contrary evidence is not so 

overwhelming as to undermine the court’s finding that Mother both engaged in conduct 

that endangered her children’s physical or emotional well-being and knowingly placed or 
18

knowingly allowed her children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered 

their physical or emotional well-being. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); 

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 261, 266. Because the evidence is legally and factually 

sufficient to support both grounds, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the remaining grounds. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 232–33; TEX. R. APP.

P. 47.1. We overrule Mother’s issue as it relates to the statutory grounds for termination.

C. Best Interest

Mother also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s 

finding that termination was in Z.K.R.’s best interest. In reviewing a best interest finding, 

we consider, among other evidence, the non-exclusive Holley factors. See In re E.N.C., 

384 S.W.3d 796, 807 (Tex. 2012) (citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 

1976)). These factors include: (1) the child’s desires; (2) the child’s emotional and 

physical needs now and in the future; (3) any 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 the individuals seeking custody to promote the best interest 

of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the individuals or agency seeking custody; (7) the 

stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the parent’s acts or omissions which may 

indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is improper; and (9) any excuse for the 

parent’s acts or omissions. Id.

As to the first Holley factor, the Department’s caseworkers and the CASA advocate 

testified that Z.K.R. was fearful of Mother during their visitations, refusing to participate 

and often hiding from her on virtual visits. Z.K.R. would say “no, no, no” when he saw 
19

Mother and it was expressed that he was afraid to be returned to Mother. There was also 

evidence that Z.K.R. was bonded to his foster family, often rushing to the foster family 

after visits. In light of this testimony, this factor weighed in favor of the trial court’s best 

interest finding.

As to the second Holley factor, there was some testimony that Z.K.R. attended 

play therapy and counseling and that his current placement met the needs of Z.K.R.’s 

routine and schedule. There was no testimony regarding Mother’s ability to address 

Z.K.R.’s needs in the future, however, at the time of trial, Mother still had several months 

before she would be released from the SAFP and testified that she would then have to 

reside in a halfway home for a period of time before being able to meet the needs of 

Z.K.R. The trial court could have also considered the undisputed evidence regarding 

Mother’s failure to maintain significant contact with Z.K.R. as well as her failure to 

participate in the court-ordered services required to secure reunification with him. See In 

re J.J.O., 131 S.W.3d 618, 630 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (finding that mother 

failed to regularly visit or maintain significant contact with child supported by legally and 

factually sufficient evidence when mother made only twelve visits during nine-month 

period); M.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 305, 310 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2009, pet. denied) (finding that mother failed to regularly visit or maintain 

significant contact with the child when she visited only six to eight times in one year); see 

also In re J.T.G., No. 14-10-00972-CV, 2012 WL 171012, at *17 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] Jan. 19, 2012, pet. denied). The trial court could find from the evidence that 

this factor supports a best interest finding.
20

Regarding emotional and physical danger, the third Holley factor, Mother admitted 

to drug use including methamphetamines. See In re M.R., 243 S.W.3d 807, 821 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (noting that a parent’s drug use supports a finding that 

termination is in the best interest of the child). While Mother tried to mitigate her drug 

abuse by trying to avoid using in front of Z.K.R., her drug use was persistent before and 

after removal until her court-ordered admission into SAFP, and it led to her placing the 

child with an unfit caregiver, which in turn led to the child’s injuries. This factor also weighs 

in favor of the trial court’s best interest finding.

As to Mother’s parental abilities, her plans for Z.K.R., and the stability of a future 

home, Mother stated she would be enrolling in a parenting course while in the SAFP. 

However, Mother had not completed any services as of the time of trial relating to 

parenting courses. There was also testimony that Mother neglected Z.K.R.’s needs while 

he was in the hospital, including feeding him when he was hungry or changing his soiled 

diapers. Mother testified that she hoped to obtain employment, find a stable home, and 

enroll her son into a reputable daycare, but aside from these blanket assertions, there 

was no explanation of how she would manage to accomplish these tasks. In contrast, the 

Department presented ample evidence that Z.K.R. was thriving, happy, and well cared 

for in a foster home with his younger sibling. While the Department did not put on evidence 

regarding the adoption of Z.K.R. by the foster family, the Department established that he 

is in a positive home environment. These factors weigh in favor of the best interest finding.

Regarding the final two Holley factors, Mother did not offer a credible excuse for

her behavior in caring for Z.K.R. While Mother attempted to place the blame for the 
21

injuries solely on D.L., she acknowledged that she was aware, to some extent, of D.L.’s 

abusive nature and Mother chose to place her child in D.L.’s care so that she could spend 

a long weekend using methamphetamines. Mother had a history of drug abuse, leading 

to the removal and termination of her rights to her four older children, yet she continued 

to abuse methamphetamines even after the removal of Z.K.R. While it is undisputed that 

Mother did not directly cause the burn injuries to Z.K.R., Mother’s history of drug use and 

carelessness for her child’s well-being was affirmatively demonstrated in the record. The 

final two factors weigh in favor of the best interest finding.

Because the Holley factors in this case weigh in favor of termination, we conclude 

the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding, and we 

overrule Mother’s issue as it relates to the best interest finding.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

28th day of March, 2024.