T o p ro te c t t h e p riva c y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d re n , w e re fe r t o th e m a n d th e p a re n ts b y th e i r i n i ti a l s . See 1 T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 0 9 .0 0 2 (d ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.8(b). 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0067 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
IN TH E IN TE RES T OF A .F., K .F. A ND S.F ., CH ILD REN
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, A.S. , appeals from t he tr ial co urt’ s t er minat ion of her parental r ig hts to her three c hil dren, A .F ., K.F ., and S.F ., and it s findi ng that any appeal of the te rmi nati on findi ng
w oul d be friv olo us. A. S. fil ed a sta tement of point s o n appea l w it h the t ria l co urt, as 1
re q uired by

st atute

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 263 .4 0 5 (b )( 2 ) (V erno n 20 08). Af ter aT .F ., t h e c h ild r e n ’s p a te r n a l g r a n d m o th e r , t e s tif ie d to th e f o llo w in g r e g a r d in g A .S . a n d th e c h ild r e n ’s 2 f at her ’ s dr ug u se:

M y s o n a n d [A .S .] n e e d r e h a b r e a lly b a d . M y g r a n d k id s d o n o t n e e d to g o b a c k in to th e ir c u s to d y. I c a lle d th e s e p e o p le tw ic e to s a v e m y g r a n d k id s b e c a u s e m y s o n a n d [A .S .] w ill not sav e t hem sel v es. You cann ot br i ng ch i l dr en i nt o t he wor l d an d no t t ake car e of t hem and not gi v e a cr ap a bout t hem l i k e t hey hav e do ne. . . . O nl y t hi ng t hey bot h car e about i s t hat d ru g th a t t h e y ’ re d o i n g a n d w h e re th e y c a n g e t i t fro m n e x t. 2 hearing , t he tr ial co urt c oncl uded t hat h er appeal w as friv olo us. By tw o i ss ues, A.S

. chal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s t er minat ion and friv olo usnes s fin din g s. W e aff ir m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND A.S. i s t he mothe r of three c hil dren, A .F ., K.F ., a n d S .F

. A t th e ti me of tr ial , t he
c hi l dren w ere th r ee , tw o, an d on e y ea rs ol d, r es pe c ti v el y . Al l th r ee c hi l dren ha v e th e s am e father, w ho i s n ot a par ty to thi s a ppeal

. O n o r a b o u tDe c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e T e xa s De p a rt m e n to f Fa m il y a n d P ro t e c t ive Ser v ic es (t he “ Dep artment” ) re mov ed th e c hil dren f ro m A.S. ’s home ba sed on th e Dep artment’ s i nv est ig ati on of a N ov ember 26, 2008 traff ic sto p inv olv ing A.S. , tw o of the chi ldren, a n d t h e c h ild re n’s father

. J.T. Smit h, an i nv est ig ator for t he Vi cto ri a C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tm e n t, t e sti fied th at, dur ing the traff icst op, h e found mar ihu ana on the children ’s fa the r and pla ced h im und er arrest. Investigator Smith then cond ucte d a sea rch of the vehicle and foun d a load ed m eth am phe tam ine pipe , a digital scale, a sm all plastic bag cont aining a y ellowi sh residue , and four pa w n sho p receipt s. Investigator Smith also question ed A.S., w ho adm itted tha t she had a sma ll plastic bag i n he r purse that cont ain ed metha mphetami ne. A.S. al so admit ted t o us ing methampheta mine approx imat ely tw o w eeks pr ior

to the t ra ff icst op and that both her and the children’s fath er w ere m arihua na a nd m eth am phe tam ine use rs. 23

In ad dit ion , I nv est ig ator Smith obser

v ed tw o of

A.S .’ s c hil dren i n the v ehi cl e, a y oung gir l and a young boy. Inv es t ig a t o r Sm ith recalled thatboth w ere “v erydirty ” and “v ery soi led .” The i nfant boy

w as w ear ing a dia per

that w as sat urated w it h ur ine and w as lea ki ng ont o his clothe s. In fact, h is shirt w as satu rated up to h is chest. Moreover, the bo y ’s bottle cont ain ed s poile d m ilk . Inv est ig ator Smi th di d notfind a ny extra di apers o r a c hang e of cl othes for t he c hil dr en i n the ca r. The y oung gi rl did not hav e any sh oes, and itappeared that she w as dr ink ing co ff ee th at w as apparentl y purch ased at a conv eni ence st ore. Base d on th ese obser

v ati ons, Inv est ig ator

Smi th di d notbel iev e tha t t he ch ildren w ere bei ng prop erly cared for by A.S. or the children ’s fa the r. T he ch ildren w ere sub sequen t ly rem oved f rom A. S.’s hom e, an d the trial court entered temporar

y orders, w hic h, among other thi ng s, re q uired A.S. to pay $50 per month to sup p o rt t he c hil dren w hil e the y w ere i n the cu sto dy

of the D epar

tment. A. S. d id not make a ny

of the c our

t- ordered pay ments. A. S. was als o ordered to att end parenti ng cla ss e s a n d co u n se lin g, n e it h e r of w h ich sh e at te n d e d . S h e a l so ref u se d to un d e rgo psy c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g a n d re s i s t e d i n i t i a l e ffo rt s t o t e s th e r fo r d r u g s . H o w e v e r , the Dep artment w as lat er

abl e to condu ct a hai r- folli cl e te st , w hic h rev eal ed th at A .S. had
recen tly abu sed a mp het am ine and m eth am phe tam ine. T he only provision of the service pla n tha t A. S. c ompli ed w it h w as the p ro curement of an ide nti ficat ion ca rd

. Karen Smi they , a cas e w or ker for the D epar tment, tes ti fied th at w hil e the ch il dren
w ere in the Departm ent ’s custod y , A.S. occasion ally came to v isit. Altho ugh A.S. did miss
som e a p p o intm ent s, Sm ithey note d tha t A.S. w as good to the childre n at th e v isits. How ev er , Smi they

furth er note d that A.S. did not s how any parenti ng sk il ls , w hic h Smi theyD o c k e t w a s c a l l e d a t 9 :0 0 a .m . o n N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 9 ; h o w e v e r, A .S . w a s n o t p re s e n t. T h e S ta te 3 al l eges t hat A. S. cal l ed t he t r i al cour t t o r epor t heri l l ness a t 9: 15 a

. m . Up on d i scov er i ng t hi s, Sm i t hey i m m edi at el y w en t t o al l t he l ocal hosp i t al s t o m eet wi t h A. S. , but she was unab l e t o f i nd A. S. at anyof t he hospi t al s. 4 believed w as att ributa ble to A.S.’s failure to a tten d pa rentin g classes. Smit hey al so re cal led thatnei th e r A. S. nor t he c hil dren’ s father w oul d prov ide infor mati on abou t w here the y w ere l iv ing

. Sm it hey

bel iev ed th at bo th pa re nts had been usi ng dr ug s throug hout the i nv est ig ati on of the cas e and that re tur nin g the chi ldren to the parents w oul d endan g er the chi ldren’ s phy si cal and emoti onal w ell -b ein g . Thus, Smit hey
re commended that the p ar ental r ig hts of both A.S. and the c hil dren’ s fath e r should be ter minat ed. On N ov ember

9, 2009, the t ri al cour

t c onduc ted a final heari ng in this m atter

. On the morn ing of

the he aring, A.S. called the cou rt to say tha t she could not at ten d be cause she w as il l and w as g oin g to the loc al hosp it al. Ev en thoug h A.S. w as not p re senti n the 3
cour t room, s he w as re present ed atthe hear ing by counsel , and co unsel di d notmov e to cont inue the he aring. Aft er hea ring testim ony from sev e ra l wit n e s ses, th e trial court entered a jud g ment t er minat in g the parents ’ parental r ig hts to all three c hil dren. In par ti cul ar , t he tr ial co urt c oncl uded t hat A .S. had v iol ated sec ti ons 161.001 (1 )( D) -( F) and 161.001 (1 )( O) of the famil y co de. See i

d. § 16 1.0 01(1 )(D) -(F) , (O) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 09). The cour t f urther concl uded that the termi nati on of A.S.’ s pare ntal rig hts w oul d be in the besti nterestof the c hil dren. See i d. § 161. 001( 2) ; see als o In re J. L. , 163 S.W .3d 7 9, 84 (Te x . 200 5). Shor tl y thereafter, A.S . fil ed a moti on for new tr ial and a s tatementof poi nts onT he t r i al cour t den i ed A. S. ’ s m ot i on f or new t r i al by an or der si gned on Decem ber 23, 200 9. 4 5 appeal w it h the tr ial co urt. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 263.405 (b )( 2)

. After a hear ing , t he 4
cour t ent ered an order

findi ng A.S .’ s poi nts to be friv olo us. This appeal foll ow ed. See i d. § 263. 405( g ) (a ll ow ing a pa re nt t o appea l a findi ng of friv olo usnes s)

. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW If a trial court ma kes a f rivo lo u s n ess f inding, an agg riev ed p aren t ma y app eal; how ev er , t he appe al is i nit ial ly l imi ted t o the fri volo u sn e ss i ss ue. See i d. ; see also In re K.D. , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 60, 865 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 06, no pe t.) (“[O]nce th e trial court deter mined that an appe al is fri v olo us, the sc ope of appel lat e rev iew i s s tatut or il y

l imi ted to a re v iew

of the t ri al cour

t’ s fr iv olo usnes s fin d in g.”)

. Thus, w e mustfirst deter mine
w hether the tr ial co urt proper ly

found the appeal to be f ri v olo us before w e c an reach the subs tanti v e mer it s o f the appea l. See In re S.T. , 239 S.W .3d 452 , 454 (Tex. App. –W aco 2007, pet. deni ed) ; see a lso Lumpkin v. Tex. Dep’ t of Fami

ly & Protective Servs. , 260 S.W .3d 524 , 526 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 08, no pe t.). W e revi ew a trial court’s det ermin ation thatan ap pea l is f riv olou s u nde r an abu se of dis creti on s tandard. In re M. N. V. , 216 S.W .3d 833, 834 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2006, no pet .) ; In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 866

. Und er thi s sta ndard, w e deci de w hether the t ri al court acte d w ithou t referen ce to guiding rules and principles or if the com plaine d-of

act is
ar bit ra ry and unreason abl e. Lumpkin , 260 S.W .3d at 527 ( ci ti ng D owner v. Aquam ar ine Ope rators, In c. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5)). Tex as Fami l y

C o d e s e ct i o n 2 63.405( d) (3 ) direct s t he tr ial co urt t o det er mine w hether
an a ppe al f rom a termin ation order is frivolous “as provi d e d b y section 13.0 03(b ), Civ il6

Practices a nd Rem edie s Code. ” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 263. 405( d) (3 ); see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 13. 003( b) ( Ver non 200 2)

. Sect io n 13.0 03( b) prov ide s t hat “ [i ]n deter mini ng w hether

an a ppeal i s fr iv olo us, a j udg e may co nsi der

w hether the appel lan t has present ed a subs tanti al q uest ion for a ppel lat e rev iew .” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 13. 003( b)

. Therefore, an appeal is fri v olo us if i t l ack s a n arg uabl e bas is i n ei ther law or i n fact. See Lumpkin , 2 6 0 S. W .3 d at52 7 (cit in g In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 866 ; De La Ve g a v. Ta co Caba na, Inc. , 974 S.W .2d 1 52, 1 54 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1998, no pet .)). An app eal of a ter minat ion order i s l imi ted to the iss ues present ed i n the st atement of point s. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 26 3.4 05(i); se e also Po ol v. Tex. Dep’ t of Fami ly & Prote ctive Servs. , 227 S.W .3d 2 12, 215 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 2007, no pet. ). I f a trial court con clude s t h a t an ap pea l is f riv olou s, the n the court ha s nece ssarily det ermin ed th at ea ch of the issue s ident if ied i n the state me nt of point s is friv olou s; or, in other w ords, thatthey

l ack a s ubst anti al basi s i n l aw or fact. See Lu m

pkin , 260 S.W .3d a t 5 2 7 (cit in g In re S.T. , 263 S.W .3d 3 94, 3 98- 99 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2008, pet. deni ed) ). III . A N AL Y S IS In t he i nst ant cas e, A .S. arg ues that she present ed s ubst anti al q uest ion s for app ellate rev iew

conce rning the statu tory basis for the te rmina tion o f her paren tal rig hts. S p e c i fi c a l l y , A

. S

. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l y a n d fa c t u a l l y i n s u ffi c i e n t t o supp ort the trial court’s order termin a t in g h e r pare nta l ri ghts base d on sev eral statu tory g ro unds. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 161. 001( 1) ( li sti ng g ro unds for th e ter minat ion of parental r ig hts ).7

A . A p p l i c a b l e L a w In proceed ing s t o ter minat e the parent -ch ild rela ti onshi p broug ht un der se cti on 161 .00 1 of

the fam ily

code , the petitio ner m ust est ablish b y clear and convincing evidence that one s tatut or

y g ro und for ter minat ion i s s ati sfied and t hat the t er minat ion of the p arents ri g hts are i n the best interestof the chi ld. Id. § 16 1.001; see In r e J.L. , 163 S.W .3d a t 84. “‘Cl ear an d convincing ev iden ce’ me ans th e me asure or degree of proof thatw ill prod uce in the mi nd of the tr ier

of fa ct a f irm b e lief

or co nv ic ti on as to the t ru th of the al leg ati ons sought to be esta blished .” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 101. 007 ( Ver non 200 8)

. “W hen the tr ial cour

t condu cts a friv olo usnes s hear ing on an appel lan t’ s p ro posed legal and factu al suf

f iciency issues, th e trial court sho uld ap ply the [app licable] sta nda rd[s] of rev iew .” In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 867 -6 8. In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the evidence su ppo rting parenta l termina tion, the evidence is v iew ed in th e lig ht mos t favorable to th e f inding to de term ine w het her a reaso nab le trier of fact cou ld have forme d a f irm bel ief or conv ic ti on that it s findi ng w as tr ue. See I n r e J.L. , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 8 5 (cit in g In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d 2 56, 2 66 ( Tex . 200 2) ); see a lso In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3 d a t 8 6 7. In a factual su ff icie n cy r ev iew , t he c our t mus t det er mine w hether , on the e nti re record, a
re asona ble tri er

of f actcould hav e for med a firm beli ef or conv ic ti on th at i ts findi ng w as tr ue by consid ering w het her a reaso nab le fact-f inde r could no t have resolv ed di s pu ted ev iden ce in fav or of its findi ng . See In re J.F.C. , 96 S. W .3d a t 266 ; see also In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d at 867. Thus, the qu est ion in this case is w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by de te r mi ni ng th at th e ev i de nc e w as s uc h th at a fac t- fi nd er c ou l d r ea s on ab l y form a f irm bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at A .S. v iol ated sec ti on 161 .0 0 1( 1) of the famil y co de and that8

ter minat ion is in the c hil dren’ s b esti nterest

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 161. 001( 1) ; see also In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 868

. B. Statutory

Grounds for Termina tion Here, t he tr ial co urt c oncl uded t hat A .S.: ( 1) “ know ing ly pl aced or

kn ow ing ly

al low ed the chi ldre n t o re ma i n i n c o n d i t i o n s o r s u r ro u n d i n g s w h i c h e n d a n g e r t h e p h y s i c a l or em otion al w ell-being of the child”; (2) “engaged in cond uct or kno win gly placed the child
w ith pe rsons w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich en d a n ge rs the ph y sical or emo tiona l w ellbei ng of the c hil d” ; ( 3) “ faile d to suppo rtthe ch ild i n accordance w it h the parent’ s a bil ity during a period of

one y ear en ding w ithin six mon ths of the dat e of the f iling of the pe tition”; and (4) failed to com ply w ith the p rov isions of t he court orde r ne cessary for her “to obt ain the return of

the child. ” See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 161. 001( 1) (D )- (F ), ( O)

. Und er se cti on 161. 001( 1) (E ) of the famil y co de, a parent’ s ri g hts may be te rmi nated if it is e s t a b li s h e d b y

clear and convincing evidence th at th e pa rent ha s “engaged in cond uct or kno w ingly

placed the child wi th pe rsons w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich end angers the physical or em otion al w ell-being of the child. ” Id. § 16 1.001( 1) (E ). I n ana lyz ing this subsectio n, “w e look exclusiv ely to the paren ts’ cond uct, inclu ding action s, om issions, or the pare nts’ failure to a ct.” W il lia ms v. W

il lia ms , 1 5 0 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 6 , 4 5 0 (T e x. Ap p .–Au st in 20 0 4 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g In re D.M. , 58 S. W .3 d 8 01, 811 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 200 1, no pet. )). T ermin ation base d on this subse ction m ust be prem ised on more than a s ing le actor

omi ss ion ; a v olu ntar

y , del ibe ra te, and c onsc iou s “ course of conduc t” that endang er ed th e c hil dr en’ s p hy si cal and emoti onal w ell -b ein g i s req uired. Id. ( citing Tex. Dep’

t of Hum an Se rvs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W .2d 5 31, 5 34 ( Tex . 198 7) ; In re D.M. , 589

S.W .3d at 811)

. “E ndang er” means to ex pose to l oss or i nju ry or to jeo pardiz e. Se e In re M.C. , 917 S.W .2d 2 68, 2 70 (Tex . 199 6)

. The endang er ing ac ts need no t hav e been direct ed at

the chi ldren or

hav e caused an ac tual i nju ry or threat o f inj ur

y to the c hil dren to
cons ti tut e c o nductthatendang ers t he c hil dren’ s p hy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g . Id. at 269. M or eov er , ac ts direct ed atthe parent’ s o ther ch il dren maybe c onsi dered w hen deter mini ng endang er ment t o the ch il dren th at are the su bje ct of the te rmi nati on proceed ing s. See In re Bab y Boy R. , 191 S.W .3d 916, 925 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2006, pet. d e n ie d ) (ci ti n g Luca s v. Tex. Dep’ t of Prote ctive an d Regu latory Se rvs. , 949 S.W .2d 5 00, 5 0 3 ( T e x. App.–W aco 1997, w ri t den ied ), disap prove d on othe r grounds by In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d 2 56 ( Tex . 200 2) ; Trevino v. Tex. Dep’ t of Prote ctive & Regu latory Se rvs. , 893 S.W .2d 243 , 248 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 95, no w rit))

. In t he i nst ant c ase, t h e D e p a rt ment present ed ev ide nce that A.S. abus ed and cont inu es to abuse drug s, spec ific all y mar ihu ana, amphetami ne, a nd metha mphetami ne. Dur ing the traff icstop, Inv est ig ator Smith found a loa ded methamphetami ne pi pe, a di g it al
sc al e , a n d a s ma l l p l a s t i cb a g c o n t a i n i n g a y e l l o w i s h re s i d u e . I n a d d i t i o n , I n v e s t i g ator Sm ith foun d a sm all plastic bag cont a in in g m e tha mp het am ine in A.S .’s purse. A.S . told Inv est ig ator

Smi th t hat: (1 ) the chi ldren’ s father is a manufact urer of methampheta mine; (2 ) she had us ed metha mphetami ne approx imat ely tw o w eeks pri or

to the traff icstop; and (3 ) she and t he c hil dr en’ s father w ere bot h reg ula r abuse rs o f mar ihu ana and
me tha mp het am ine. Moreover, the Dep artm entt end ered t he results of t he h air-fo llicle test that w as condu cte d on A. S., w hic h rev eal ed th at s he had tes ted p osi ti v e for amphetami ne and me tha mp het am ine. T he Departm ent also presente d evidence that A.S. re pea ted ly10

re f u se d to su b m itto dru g te st in g. On appeal , A. S. a rg ues that the t est imony thatsh e had used dr ug s i s n ot a suffici ent basi s t o ter minat e her

parental r ig hts

. She further a rgu e s t hat t here i s n o ev ide nce that
e it h e r she or

the chi ldren’ s father

had used dr ug s i n the presenc e of the chi ldren. How ev er , Tex as cour

ts hav e hel d that condu ct that subj ect s a chi ld to a l ife of unce rt ain ty and i nst abi li ty

may endang er

the chi ld’ s p hy si cal and e m o ti o nal w ell -b ein g under subs ect ion 161. 001( 1) (E ). In r e R

. W. , 129 S.W .3d 7 32, 7 39 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 04, p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g In re S.D. , 980 S.W .2d 7 58, 7 63 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1 9 9 8, pe t. deni ed) ); see In r

e J.O. A. , 283 S.W .3d 336 , 345 n.4 (T ex. 200 9). Furthe rmore , drug use and its ef

fect on a pare nt’s life and ability to pa rent m ay esta blish an end angering course of conduc t. See In r

e R

. W. , 129 S.W .3d a t 739 ( ci ti ng Dupree v. Tex. D ep’ t of Prote ctive & Regu latory Se rvs. , 907 S.W .2d 8 1, 84 ( Tex . Ap p.–1995 , no w ri t) ); see als o In re A.O

. , No. 2- 09- 005- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 857, at *11 (Te x. Ap p .– Fo rtW orth J une 25, 2009, no pet .) ( mem. op.) ( “P arental and care[- ]g iv er ill eg al dr ug use suppor ts a c oncl usi on that the chi ldren’ s sur ro undi ng s endang er thei r phy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g .” ) (c it ing In r e J.T .G. , 121 S.W .3d 1 17, 1 25 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 20 03, n o pet .) ; In re S.D. , 980 S.W .2d at 76 3; In re M.M. , N o . 0 2 -0 8 -0 0 0 2 9 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 9 2 3 7 , a t*1 7 (T e x. App .–Fo rt W orth Dec. 1 1, 20 08, no pe t.) (mem . op. )). Base d on the reco rd before us, we conclude thata reason able fact-f inde r could hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at A .S. eng ag ed i n a c our se o f conduc t—t he abuse and poss ess ion of ill eg al narcot ic s—that endang ered all three of her chi ldren. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 161. 001( 1) (E ); see a lso In re Bab y Boy R. , 191 S.W .3d a t 925 ;11

Lucas , 949 S.W .2d a t 503 ; Tr evi no , 893 S.W .2d at 248 . Th us, w e ho ld tha t the ev iden ce suppo rt ing termi n a ti o n under se cti on 161. 001( 1) (E ) of the famil y co de i s l eg all y

and factual ly su ff icie n t. Gi ven our

hol din g , w e need not a ddress the re maini ng g ro unds for ter minat ion speci fied in the tri al cour t’ s o rd er . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1; see also In re S.T. , 263 S.W .3d a t 402 -0 3; In re D.M. , 58 S.W .3d at 813 (s tati ng that , bec ause onl y one findi ng all eg ed unde r sec ti on 161. 001( 1) i s n eces sar y to a j udg ment of ter minat ion , a re v iew ing
co u rtaf f irm in g on e grou n d ne e d no t a d d r e s s o t h e r gro u n d s fo r te rm in a ti o n ) (ci ti n g In re S.F. , 32 S.W .3d 318, 320 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2000, no p et.) ). H ow ev er , i n order to uph old th e judgme nt of

termin ation , w e mu st also examine t he suf f iciency of

the evidence
as itrela tes to the b esti nterestof the c hil dren. See In r e D.M. , 58 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4; see also In re J.O.C. , 47 S.W .3d 1 08, 1 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2001, no pet .)

. C. Bes t In te resto f th e C hi ld ren There is a strong presu mpti on that the best inte re st of the c hil d i s s er v ed by ke epi ng cus tody i n the natu ra l parent. See In re K.C.M. , 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 3
- 9 5 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 9, pe t. deni ed) ; se e a ls o Z ie gler v. Tarrant Cou nty Child W elfare Unit , 680 S.W .2d 674 , 676 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 84, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ). How ev er , i n det er mini ng w hether termi nati on is in a chil d’s best interest , t he fact- finder may cons ide r the follo w ing non- ex haust iv e l is t of factors o utl ine d by the Tex as Supreme C our t: (1 ) the d esi re s of the ch il d; ( 2) the presentand future phy si cal and emoti onal needs of the chi ld; ( 3) the pr esentand future emoti onal and phy si cal dang er to the c hil d; ( 4) the parental abi li ti es of the pers on seeki ng custod y ; (5) the prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t t hose persons in promoti ng the bestinterestof the chi ld; (6) the pla n for the chi ld by

thos e i ndi v idu als or12

by the ag ency

se eki ng custod y ; ( 7) the act s o r omis si ons of the parent t hat may i ndi cat e that the e x is ti ng parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s n ot ap propr iat e; ( 8) the sta bil ity of the h ome or prop osed place me nt; and ( 9) any excuse for the acts or om issions of the pa rents. Holley
v . A da ms , 544 S.W .2d 3 67, 3 71- 72 ( Tex . 197 6) ; see In re D.M. , 58 S.W .3d at 814 . “‘ Best int er est ’ does not re q uire proof o f any uni q ue s et of factors, nor does i t l imi t proof to any specif ic fa ctors.” In r

e D.M. , 5 8 S. W .3 d at81 4 (cit in g Hol ley, 544 S.W .2d at 371-72) . The par ty se eki ng ter minat ion need not p ro v e tha t eac h of the Hol ley factors fav ors t er minat ion , and the sam e evidence of a cts or o mission s u sed und er se ction 161 .00 1(1) of t he fam ily code maybe p ro bati v e i n det e rm in in g t h e bes t i nterest s o f the c hil d. See In re C.H. , 89 S. W .3 d 17, 27 ( Tex . 200 2) ; see als o In re A.A .A. , 265 S.W .3d 507 , 516 (Tex. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 08, pet. den ied). The tr ial co urt hea rd tes ti mony that A.S. is a dr ug us er w ho repeated ly

refused to subm it to drug testing. In add ition, at the time of the traf f ic stop, two of

the childre n w ere found in the v ehi cl e w it h A. S. a nd th e c hil dren’ s father , bot h of w hom w ere i n pos ses si on of il leg al dr ug s a nd dr ug parapher nal ia w hil e in the p re senc e of the chi ldren. The chi ldren
w er e v er y di rty ; I nv est ig ator

Smi th t est ified thatthe li ttl e boy w as si tti ng i n hi s o w n ur ine

. Inv est ig ator

Smi th further

tes ti fied th at t he l it tl e boy had spoi led mil k i n hi s b ottl e and t hat the li ttl e g ir l w as dr ink ing co ff ee obt ain ed from a co nv eni ence sto re . Mo re ov er , s inc e the chi ldren hav e been in the cus tody of t he Dep artment, A.S . has fail ed to make any co urtordered c hil d s u p p o rt p ay ments and has refused to att end c ounse li ng and parenti ng cl ass es. W hil e A.S. has attended some sc hedul ed v is it ati ons w it h her ch il dren, S mith ey tes ti fied th at many

appoi ntments w ere mi ss ed and thatA.S . di d notdemons trate t he abi li ty13

to proper ly

ca re for t he c hil dr en. Fi nal ly , w e find ittel li ng that A.S. fail ed to att end t he final hear ing on the ter minat ion of her parent al r ig hts and rep re sent ed to the tr ial co urt t hat s he
w as ill and going to the local ho spital, yet me dical do cum ent s conta ined in the record
re ve a l t h a t A .S . d id no t go to th e ho sp it a l u n ti l 9 :3 3 p. m . o n th e eve n in g of th e he a rin g. Fur ther more, the re cord show s that A.S. onl y sta y ed at the hospi tal for thi rty min utes and
w as no t seen bya docto r. Conside ring all of

the ev iden ce cont aine d in the record, w e ho ld tha t a reaso nab le fact- finder

co uld hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at i t w as in the b esti nterestof the c hil dren for A.S. ’s parenta l ri g hts to be termi nated; thus , t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing the tr ial co urt’ s b esti nteres t f in d in g i s l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. See In re S.T. , 263 S.W .3d a t 402 -0 3; see als o In re J. L. , 163 S.W .3d a t 85; In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d a t 266 ; In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 867

. Bec ause w e hav e c oncl uded t hat t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing the t er minat ion of A.S. ’s parenta l ri g hts is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t, w e hol d tha t t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e its disc re ti on in det er mini ng thatA.S .’ s a ppeal w as friv olo us. See Lumpkin , 260 S.W .3d a t 526 ; In r e M.N.V. , 216 S. W .3d a t 834 ; In re K.D. , 202 S.W .3d a t 866 . Accordingly , w e overrule both of A.S.’s issues o n ap pea l. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_____________________ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 12th day of Aug ust , 201 0.