O pinion filed April 7 , 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

________ _

_ No. 11

- 21

- 00 2 3 5

- C V

__________
IN THE INTEREST OF S.H

. , A.H., AND C

. K

. , CHILD REN

On Appeal from the 3 26 th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9937

- CX

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 of the children, S.H., A.H., and C.K

. , and the father of C.K

. 1
The mot her filed this appeal . On appeal, s he presents one issue in which s he challenges the t rial court’s finding that the termination of h er parental rights would
be in the children’s best interest . We affirm the order of the trial court.

1 We note that the father of S.H. and A.H. was deceased at the time of trial.2 Terminatio n Findings and Standards The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001(b) (West Supp. 202 1 ). 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. Id. In this case, the tri al court found that Appellant had committed four of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)

— those found in subsections (D) , (E) , ( N ), and ( O )

. Appellant does not challenge these findings on appeal. The trial court also found, pursuant to Section 161.00 1(b)(2), that termination of Appellant’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). In h er sole issue on appeal, Appellant asserts that the termination
of h er parental rights was not in the children’s best interest. Appellant appears to challenge both the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s best interest finding

. To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient in a p arental 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 (T ex. 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 th e parent. In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 25

– 26 (Tex. 2002). We note that the trial court is the sole arbiter of the credibility
and demeanor of witnesses. In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014) (citing In
re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d 79, 86

– 87 (Tex. 2005)).
Wit h 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).3 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 stabili ty 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 p roves 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.
Evidence and Analysis
The record shows that the Department of Family and Protective Services
received an intake in January 20 2 0 based upon concerns that Appellant was using cocaine, heroin, Xanax, and MDMA while caring for her three children , who at that time were approximately five years, four year s, and one year old

. During the investigation, the Department requested that Appellant submit to a drug test and that
she take her children to be drug tested. Appellant submitted to a hair follicle test; she tested positive for methamphetamine. The Depa rtment subsequently obtained a court order and took the children for testing; all three children tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, t he chi ldren were removed from Appellant’s care. After the children were removed , employees of the Department and 2INgage
worked with Appellant on her court

- ordered family service plan. Appellant did well at first but eventually “fell off the radar,” resumed the use of illicit drugs, and quit visiting the children. At the time of tr ial, she had not visited or had any contact with4 the children in eight months. Appellant initially did well on her service plan, but she eventually quit participating in her services and quit communicating with the 2INgage case manager. Appellant did no t appear for trial, and her attorney indicated that he had had
no recent contact with her. The 2INgage case manager testified that she had been attempting to contact Appellant through various means since December 2020

. Despite those efforts, she had been unable to reach or find Appellant from December 2020 to the date of the final hearing in September 2021. Appellant had not submitted to a drug test since October 2020. The 2INgage case manager believed that it would be in the children’s best
interest f or Appellant’s parental rights to be terminated. The Department’s plan for
the children was for A.H. and S.H. to be adopted by their paternal aunt and for C.K. to be adopted by her foster parents. The record shows that A.H. and S.H.’s paternal

aunt was in the process of obtaining a foster

- to

- adopt license so that she could adopt A.H. and S.H. A.H. and S.H. were still in foster care at the time of trial, but they had visited the paternal aunt and th ose visits went “very well.” The record also shows that C.K. had been placed in a n adoptive foster home and that her foster parents wish to adopt he r

. The Department had no concerns about the parenting abilities of A.H. and S.H.’s paternal aunt or C.K.’s foster parents, nor did the Department have any concerns about the abilities of the adoptive parents to meet the
children’s needs.
T he trial court, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility.
A.B. , 437 S.W.3d at 503

. W e are no t at liberty to disturb the determinations of the trier of fact as long as those determinations are not unreasonable. J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d
at 573. We note that the record in this case is somewhat scant. Nonetheless, g iving due deference to the trial court, w e hold that, based on the evidence presented at trial
and the Holley factors, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or5 conviction that termination of Appellant’s parental rights would be in the best
interest of A.H., S.H., and C.K. 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 those involved , the plans for the children by the Department , Appellant’s use of methamphetamine
while the children were in her care , Appellant’s expos ure of all three children to methamphetamine , Appellant’s return to the use of drugs while the case was pending below, Appellant’s failure to visit or have any contact with her children for eight months, and the instability of Appellant’s situation, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the best interest of A.H., S.H., and C.K

. See id. We defer to the trial court’s finding as to the children’s best interest, see C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 27, and
we cannot hold in this case that the trial court’s finding as to best interest is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, w e ov errule Appellant’s
sole issue. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the order of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

April 7, 2022
Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and Williams , J.