### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00018-CV R. H., Appellant
v. Texas D epartment of P rotective and Regulator y Services, Appel

lee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 99-00513, H ONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDG E PRESIDING
Appe llantappe als a

n ord er ter m i n ati n g h er pa re n t-c h i l d r el ati on sh i p w i th both of her
c hi ldren and a ppo inting a ppe llee Texa s De par t ment o f Pro t ect ive and R egu lato ry Se rvi ce s ( th e “Departm ent”) perm

anen t ma na gi ng c onse rva tor. Ap pe llant ap pe als on the following two g rou nds: (1) that t he ev

ide nceisle g all

y and f act ually insuf fi cient to suppo rt the t ermin ation o f appellant’s pa re n ta l ri gh ts a n d ( 2) th at th

e te sti mon y of Ch arl es an d B ar b ara L ev er ett s h oul d n ot h ave b ee n exclud ed by t he t rial co ur t . We will aff irm the dec re e o f te rminat ion. FACTUAL AND P

ROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In Jul y 1997, appe l l an

t ma rri ed L arry

Duarte. A

t that ti me, app el l an t was 1 7 y

ears ol d and Duarte was 29 y

ears old. The couple had two chil dre n: F.D., a boy , born on January 20, 1998, an d V
. D. , a g irl, bo rn o n D ec emb er 29 , 19 98
. Du r ing t he ir ma rr ia ge, appe l l an t an d D ua rte l i ve d wi th appel l an t’s pa ren ts or gran dpare nts.2 One mon th after the cou ple w ed , Duarte

serv ed 150 da y s i n j ai l f ol l owi ng a c onv i cti on of i nj ury to a chi l d. H e was found gui

lty of f racturing the skul

l a nd breaki ng the wri st of hi s f

ivemo nt h- o ld

daughter , D.C., wh o wa s b orn of a p rev i ousrel ati ons hi p. In a ddi ti on to th e term of
con f i n em en t, Du ar te was sen

tenced to 10 years of probati on and was requi redto att end chi

ld ab use cl as se s a n d c ounse l i

n g f or a n ger m an ag em en t. Appe llantclaimed t hat she did not know o f Duarte’s violent past when they were fi rst
ma rried. Appe llantt est ifi

ed t hat Dua rt e t old her t hat he we nt t o jail for st alking, violat ing a pr ot ect ive order, and not pa

rtic i pati ng i n a nge r m anagem en t cl ass es. A

ppe l l an t knew Du arte wa s on pr oba t ion, butcl ai me d she di

d not know why

he was goi

ng to co urt. S he s tate d th at s h e d i d n ot as k D ua rte about the proceedin

gs be ca us e s he felt t ha t if Du ar t e h ad wa nt ed he rt o kn o w h e w o uld ha ve told h er. Appe llantalso k

n ew Du ar te w as tak i n g f am i l y v i ol en ce cou rs es . F ur th er , a pp el l an t ad m i tted to discovering legal paperwo rk r elated t o Du art e’s cr iminal c as e. Ap pe llant lat er be ca me f ull y awar e of Duart e’s con

v i cti on f or i n j ur y to a c h i l d, b ut sh e b el i ev ed th at th e i n j uri es to D.C. did n

ot happen and that the charges were fal si fi ed. Af ter compl

eting h is ja il term, Duarte retur ned to li ve wi th app ella nt at her grandpar en

ts ’ h om e. F. D. wa s b orn

on Ja n ua ry 20 , 19 98 . A

t ti m es , a pp el l an t an d D ua rteb oth worked night s, w hi ch resul ted in F .D. bei

ng left wi th fri ends wh il e appella nt and Duarte were at
wo r k. Ap pe llant ’s fr ien ds , by he ro wn ad miss io n, did not pr op er ly care fo r t he child, and a ppe llant
wo uld often f

in d F.D. covered in

urin e when she pi cked hi m up a fter work. On at least one oc cas ion, F.D. d ev eloped an

i nf ection f rom th e uri ne .3 On De cem b er 29 , 19 98 , V .D . w as

b orn , a n d on e w eek a f

ter h er b i rth , V.D.’ s pe diatri ci an de cl are d her h eal thy . On Ja nu ary 10 or Janu ar y 12, 199 9, app ellant left V. D. and F.D. alone wit h Duarte whil

e she we nt to the store. Wh

en appel la nt returned, she f

ound both chi

ldre n cryi ng. Sh e a sk ed Du ar t e w ha t ha pp en ed , an d D ua r t e t o ld h er t ha t wh ile al l three of t hem wer e lying
on a b ed , F .D ., w

h o wa s two-y

ea rs -ol d a t t h e ti me , kicked V.D. i

n the head. Later that eveni ng, V.D. ’s head b egan

to sw ell s ev er ely. Br ui sin g o n V . D. ’s fa ce an d e ye b ec ame no t ice ab le a fe w d ays l ater. Appe llantcla ims t ha t sh e c alle d t he Au st in R eg io na l Clin ic a bo ut V. D. ’s he ad inju ry, butcould n

ot see a do ct o rbe ca us e t he clinic wa s fu ll. S he als o cla ims t ha t she ca lled a fa mily
mem ber, wh o wa s a nu r se , fo rad vic e a bo ut t he sw elling an d t ha t she ap plie d ic e t o V.D.’s head. Ap pe l l an t, however, did not t ake V.D. to the docto r until January 14 for a previ

ously schedul ed appo i n tm en

t. The phy

si ci an’s assi stant, Chris

Crocker, not ic ed brui si

ng on V.D.’s ey

e and h ead. Crocker sent V.D. to the hospi tal be cause he

suspected that she ha

d a he ad i

nj ury . A CA

T scan
r ev ea led t ha t V. D. ha d a fr ac t ur ed sk ull an d s o me s mallareas of h em orrhage on the brai

n. Her l eg was also fractured. In addi tion, V.D. was diagno sed wit h pneu monia, which wa s no t re late d t o t he head and leg in

juries. A radiologist in

dicated that V.D.’s leg in jury was most li

kely cause d bya violent t wist ingor jerki

ng. Docto rs al so determi

ned that her he ad

inju r ies we r e mo st like ly

intent ional and fou nd appella nt’s num erous expl anati ons f or t he i nj uries unconv in ci ng. Appel la nt asserted, at various tim es, that the i

nj uri es w erecaused by

(1) F.D. kicki

ng V.D.’s h

ead; (2) Duarte dropping V.D.; (3) her aunt’s ex-boy

fri end; (4) a neighbo r; ( 5) pr egna ncy pr oblems, including se izur es a nd V. D. hitt ing4

her he ad on appe l l an t’s hi pb one wh i l e i n u tero; an d (6 ) V. D.’ s b

rea ch pos i ti on duri ng bi rth. Doctors expl ai ned tha t i t wa s p hy si cal l y i m pos si bl e f or F .D. to hav e caused V. D. ’s inju r ies be ca us e o f his young a ge. Doct ors also expl

ai ned that V.D.’s i nj uries could n ot have occurred during pregn ancy orbi rth. On Ja nuar y 14, 199 9, as a re sult of t he o pinions o f the do ct or s and t he exc use s o f app ellant and Duart e, t he Department removed the chil dren from their parents’ ca r e a nd pla ce d t he ch ildr en in foster care. Wh

en late r c onfr ont ed bysoc i al work ers wi th th e f ac t tha t V.D .’ s i njuri eswere n ot accidental and that Duarte was under suspi ci on, appell

ant deni ed t hat Dua rt e co uld have hurt V.D. Even after appel

la nt was conf

ronted with Duarte’s past convi ction an d probation f

or inj ury to a chi

ld, appella nt in si sted that V.D. ’s i

nj uries occurred as Duarte had in itial ly descri bed: F.D. kicked V.D. in the head. Dua rt e lat er co nfessed t o D et ect iveBrett Wil son that he threw V.D. on the bed an d then
on t he floo r w hen she wo uld no t st o p c rying
. Whe n a pp ella nt wa s t o ld o f t his c o nfe ss io n, she be ca me upsetand wan

ted to speak to Duart e. She then m et wi th Duarte, and after a very

short meeti

ng, they lef t t he Department’s offi

ces holdi ng hands. Dur ing t he t ime be t we en V. D. ’s inju ry and Du ar t e’ s a rr es t fo rinju ry t o a c hil d o n Jan uary 19, 1999 for the in

juri es to V.D. , appell

ant contin ued to liv e wi th Duarte. After he was arrested an

d j ai l ed , a pp el l an t con ti n ue d to s uppor t Duar te fina nc ially a nd emo t io na lly by vis it ing him i n j ail and sendi ng h i m l etters an d m oney. Appe llant

r ais ed mo ne y fo rDu ar t e’ s c r iminal d efe nse in t he cas e st emming from V. D. ’s inj ur ies. Ap pe l l an t an d h er f am i l y con siste n tl y den i ed th at Dua rte could ha ve be en resp onsi bl e f or V.D.’s i nj uri es.5 The De pa rtm en t ga v e a pp el l an t se v eral ch an ce to ch an ge h er b eh av i or i n ord er to
r eg ain cus tody of

her ch i l dren
. A ppe l l an t, wh o i s of avera gei nte l l i ge nc e, rec ei

ve d a ss i sta

nc e f rom t he De pa r t men t , in clu din g a prot ective parentin g cl ass, i ndi vi dual counsel in g, a psy chol ogical evalua t ion, pa r en t in g classe s, an d i ndi vi dual ized p aren

tin g ski l l s less ons w

i th a s oci al

worker. Appe llantdid n

ot dis pla y i mprovem ent and f ai le d to ch ang e her be

hav ior and attitude toward her childre n. Appell

ant was never able to admi t t hat Duart e was responsibl e for the inj uries V.D . suf fered. Appel

la nt to ld a social worker t hat she pl

ann ed to divorce Du arte i

n orde r to have her chi ldren returned to her. However, once her ch il dren were returned, she i

ntended to reunite wit h Du ar te after his cr iminal

case was s ettled in

court . The psy

chol ogical

eval uation i ndicated that app ellant was i

n den ia l a bout t he ab

us e, and Dr . Poo l e, th e p sy ch ol ogist w h o ev al ua ted appe l l an t, stated that thi s deni

al put he r ch i l dren at ri sk of f urthe r ha rm . Dur ingDepartmen

t supervi sed visi

ts with h er childre n, a ppe llantf

ai l ed to att en d to t he ir needs. A

ppel la nt ca lled bot h c hildren “

brats” and slapped F.D. on t he han ds and butto cks. Appel la nt to ld F .D. that he was responsi ble for V.D.’s i

nj uries and f or his f ather bei ng i n j ai l. F .D. cried when left wit h app ellant and pul le d away from her. V.D. al so cri

ed wh en appe l l an t hel d he r. Social wor kersi n str uc ted appe l l an t to f ee d V .D. onl

y a spe ci al f orm ul a b ec au se V.D . suf f ere d f rom refl ux, a m edi cal condi tion requi rin g a strict di et to preve

nt vomi tin g. A ppel l an t, howev er, refuse d to ac ce pt t he dia gn o sis and, des pi te soci al workers ’ wa

rni ngs , i gnore d the

di etary constrain ts, o ften givingV.D. jui

ce, which aggravated

V.D.’s condi

tion. Appel

la nt fai le d to chan

ge V.D.’s di aper when appropriate, deny

in g that it needed

to be ch anged ev en af ter social workers pro mpted he

r to do so.6 F.D. was deve lopm

entally del ay ed when he was f

irst removed f

rom appel la nt’s care. At that t im

e, F.D. wa s fi

fty -four weeks old, b

ut his ma turity age i

n gross m

ot or skil ls was ap pr o ximat ely

thirty-six weeks. F.D. was also developmen tall y de la ye d in hi s fi ne m ot or skills. His
matu ri ty age i n l anguage dev

el opmen t, which was asses sed at thirty

weeks, was also severel

y de la ye d. Te st imony

i ndi cated th at thes e dev

elopmen tal del ays we re possib ly

related to a lack

of sti m ul ati on at hom e. A ppe l l an t cl ai med tha t F. D. w asnot d

el ay ed i n d evel op ment , stating that F.D. could do many t hin gs o n his ow n. Aft er being r emove d fro m appe llant’s c ar e, F.D . be gan t re at ment w ith a speech pathologist and his lan guage skil ls b ecame age appropr iate withi n eight months. The Depa rtm en t br ough t an ac ti on to ter m i n ate appe ll an t’s pa re n tal ri gh ts to F.D . a nd V.D. The case wa s tried b efore a j ury f or fi ve day s i n Novem ber 1999. The j ury f

ound by cl ear and
co nvincing

ev ide nc e t ha t ap pe llant kn o win gly pla ced or knowingl

y a ll owed the children

t o r ema in in
co ndit ions or sur ro unding s which en da ng ere d the c hi

l dre n’ s p hy si cal or em oti ona l we l l -b ei ng , or engaged in c o nd uc t o rkn o win gly place d t he childr en wit h per so ns who engaged i n conduct whi

ch endan gered the ph y si cal or em oti ona l we l l -b ei ng of t he childr en, and t hat t er minatio n was in the best in terest o f t he ch ildr en . Ap pe llant ’s pa r en t al r igh ts we re termi

nated and the Depa

rtment was appoin ted permane

nt man agi ng conserv

ator of F.D. and V.D. Appe llantt he n p er fec t ed t his ap pe al. A pp el l an t ch al l en ge s th e dec i si on to ter m i n ate he r ri gh ts on the grounds that the evi dence is l egally and f actuall y i nsuf fi ci ent to show t hat t er minatio n was in the be st inter est of bo t h childre n and t hat t he em ot iona l and p hysical well-being of th e ch i l dr en

wa s e n da n gere d b y appe l l an t or b y th e e nvir o nme nt in w hic h sh e p lac ed t he m. Ap pe llant als o ap pe als the tri al cou rt’ s exc l us i on of t he t est imony of her gr andp ar ent s, C har les and7

Barb ara Lever et t , o n t he gr ou nds t hat t he t est imony wo uld no t have u nfairly surp rised t he Departmen

t and that the test im

ony was controllin

g and n ot cum ula tive. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court may

termi nate a parent-child rel

ationsh ip i f i t fi nds b y c le ar and c onvincing evi de nce th at ( 1) t he pa r en t ha s e ng ag ed in a ny o f t he sp ec ific c o nd uc t en ume r at ed in t he Fa mily Code a s g roun dsf ort er minat io n a nd ( 2) t er minat io n is in t he be st int er es t o f t he ch ild. T ex . Fa m. Code Ann. § 16 1.0 01( 1), (2) (West Sup p. 2 001 ); Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (T ex. 1 987 ); Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d367, 370 (Tex. 1976). In this cas e, the grounds f orterm i na ti on und er the Fam i l y Code a re b ase d on s ections 1 61.001 (1)(D) a nd ( E). SeeT ex . Fa m. Code An n. § 1 61.001 (1)(D), (E) (We st Supp . 2001) . Under thes e pro vi si ons, the trial court ma y ter m i n ate t he r elat ionship if it finds by clear and convi nci ng ev ide nce that t he pa r en t ha s “k no win gly pla ce d o rkn o win gly a llo we d t he ch ild t o r ema in in cond itio ns or sur ro unding s which e ndang er t he phy si cal or emot ional we ll-beingof the ch i l d”or“e ng ag ed in c o nd uc t o rkn o win gly p lac ed t he ch ild with pe rsons who engage d in

conduct whi ch

endan gers t he physical o r e mot ional we ll-being o f the chi ld.” Id. “Cle ar an d c o nvin cin g” mea ns t he mea su r e o rde gr ee o f pr o o f t ha t will p r o du ce in t he mind of th e tr i er of f ac t a f i rm b el i ef or c on v i cti on as to th e tr

uth of t he allega t ion so ught t o be establ is hed. Leal v. T

exas Dep’t of

Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 25 S. W.3 d 31 5, 319 (T ex. App.—A usti n 20 00, n o pet). Wh en re viewing a jur y verd ict t o d et er mine t he factual

suf fi ci ency of the evi dence, we must consider and wei

gh al l the e vi dence an d s ho uld se t as ide t he jud gme nt o nly if t he ev ide nc e is so weak an d c on tra ry to th e ov er wh el m i n g w ei gh t of ev i den ce as to be clea rly wro ng and un j ust. Cain8

v. Bain , 709 S. W.2d 175 , 17 6 (T ex. 1 986 ); Garza v. Alviar , 3 95 S .W. 2d 8 21, 823 (T ex. 196 5) . We will not sub sti

tute our j udgm

en t for th at of th

e tri er o f f

act merely beca use we r eac h a differe nt co nclusio n. Westech Eng’g , Inc. v. Cl earwater C onstructors, Inc. , 8 35 S .W. 2d 1 90, 196 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

19 92 , n o wr it ). Th e he ight ene d s t and ar d o f pr o o f fo r t er minat in g a pa r en t - ch ild
r ela t io nsh ip does n

ot alter the f

actual suf f i ci ency stan dard of revi ew at the a

ppel l ate lev el
. Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 320. Our factual suf

fi ci ency review of the ev

ide nce i n a ter minat io n c as e n ec es sa r ily incor po ra t es w het her t he chal l enged f i ndi ng h as b een prove n b y clear a nd c onv i nc i ng e vi den ce. Id. In deci din g a l egal suf fi ci ency challenge t o a n adve rse finding on a n issue o n which t he app ellant di

d n ot have the burden

of pr oof , w e c on si der on l y th e ev i den ce

an d i n f er en ce s te n di n g to supp ort the f

i ndi ng a nd d i sreg ard al

l evi den ce to the c ontrary . Id. If mor e t han a s cintilla o f pro bat ive
evi den ce s upports the f

i ndi ng, i t mu st be upheld. Id. Appe llantals o ch all enge s th e tri al cou rt’ s dec i si

on to e xc l ude the tes ti mony of appe llant ’s gr andp ar ent s. Ap pellant must est ablish tha t t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by exclud ingt he testi

mony . See Mentis v. Barnard , 870 S. W.2d 14, 16 ( Tex. 1994) . Appell ant must also show that the

error i s harm

f ul
. See Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co. , 830 S.W.2d 911, 916-17 (T ex. 1992)
. A t r ial c o ur t ab us es it s d isc r et io n w he n it ac ts i n a n u nr ea son ab l e a nd arbi trar y man ne r, or withoutre fere nce t o a ny

gui di ng rul esorpri nc i pl es. Dow

ner v. Aquamarine Operators , Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 24 1-42 (Tex. 19 85). Thi s Court may not r everse for abuse of dis cretion merely because we di sag ree wi th the deci sion of the tri al court. Id. at 242.9 DISCUSSI ON Appe llantco nt ends t hat t he evide nce s ubmitt ed a t t rial is bot h legally and factua lly insufficientto support t he termi nation of the parent-chi

ld rel ationsh ip b etween

app ellant and h

er two childre n, F.D . a nd

V.D. Unde r se ct ion 1 61. 001 of t he T exas Family Co de, t he De par t ment ha d t he burden t o e st ablish by clear a nd

convi nci ng ev ide nce that appel

la nt knowin

gly pla ced o rkn o win gly al lowed th e c hi l dre n to rem ai n i n c ond i ti ons or s urroun

di ng s w hi ch en da ng ere d the p hy

si cal or em oti ona l we l l -b ei ng of the chi ldren, or engaged in

conductor k

n owi n gl y pl ac ed th e ch i l dr en

wi th p ers on s who enga ged in cond uct which end ange re d t he physical o r e mot ional we ll-being o f the childre n, and that

termi nation of the parent-chi

ld rel ationsh ip was i n the b est in

terest o f b ot h F.D. and V.D. See Te x. Fa m. Co de Ann. § 16 1. 001 (1 )( D) -( E) , ( 2) . Ap pellant asserts that the evidence at trial focused on the alle ged phy

si cal abuse of V.D. and that alm

ost no eviden

ce was pr ese nt ed r ega rd ing t he endangermen

t and t he best

in terest o f F .D. Fin

al ly , appell ant contends that the trial

court abused it s di scre tion wh en i t exc l uded the testim

ony of Cha rl es a nd B arb ara

Le v er ett, appellant’s grandparents. The Depa rtm en t res pon dsby as serti ng tha t i t pre sente d suf

f i ci en t ev i de nc e of appellant’s endan

germen t o f b ot h of h

er chi ldren at tr ia l an d th at th e i n terests of the ch

i l dren were addressed

by the evi dence. The De

partment asserts that appella nt engaged i

n conduct whi

ch endan gered her chi ldren by (1) permi tt in g Duarte, a convicted ch

il d abuser, to have contactwith h er childre n, (2 ) leaving her chi ldren with i nappropriate caretakers, (3) fai li ng to seek medi

cal t re at ment f orV.D. af

ter he r head inj ur y, and (4 ) mist re at ing t he childr en du ring su per vised visit s. T he Dep ar t ment co ncl

udes that appell

ant’s f ai lure to appropriately

pla n f or her children ’s f

utures, her10

in abi li ty to pro vi

de for t he emo t ional and phy si cal needs of the chi ldren and to pro tect t he ch

il dren f rom ab us e, h er p oor pa

ren ti ng sk i l l s, h er l ac k of inter est in rece iving help fro m the Dep ar t ment, and t he in stabili ty of appel

la nt’s hom e env ironm ent in dic ate that term

i na ti on of her parental

righ ts was in the best i nterest of F.D. and V .D . As t o t he t est imony of ap pellant ’s gr andp ar ent s, t he De par t ment contends t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not abus e its discr et ion by excl uding the testimony

of the Leverett s. The Departmen

t also argues that, even i

f the testi mony should have been

al lowed b

y the trial cou rt, the erro r was harml

ess. Endangerment of the Children

The j ury was instr uct ed t hat , in o rd er t o t er minate t he parent-child rel ationsh ip, i t had to find by cle ar an d c o nvin cin g e vid en ce t ha t ap pe llant en da ng er ed he rch ild ren’s ph y si cal or emot ional we ll-beingeit he rby he rco nd uc t o rby mea ns o f t he ir su rrou nd i ng s a nd tha t term i na ti on was in the best interest of

the chi ldren . The j ury f

ound that t he ch

il dren’s we ll

-bei ng was en dangered. To aff irm the termi nation de cree, we mus t find t ha t t he ev ide nc e is leg ally an d f ac tual l y suf f i ci en t to supp ort onl

y one of the g round s rel

i ed up on un

der s ections 1 61.001 (1)(D) a nd ( E). Id . § 161.00 1(1)(D) -(E).

In an i nvol untary term

in ation proceedi

ng, “en danger” m

eans conduc

t t hat i s m ore than
a t hr ea t o f met ap hysica l injur y or t he p o ss ible ill effe ct s o f a les s- t ha n- ide al fa mily

en vi ronm en t. See Boyd , 727 S.W.2d at 533. Ho wev er, t he chi l d ne ed n

ot suf f er actual i nj ury . Id. Rather,

“ en da n germ en t” mea ns t o ex po se t o lo ss o rinju ry; t o je opard ize. Id. ; see also In re M.C. , 917 S. W.2d 268 , 26 9 (T ex. 1 996 ); Leal , 25 S.W .3d at 3 24. Enda

ng erm en t may occur n ot o nly fr o m a parent ’s acts, b

ut al so f rom a paren t’s f ail ure to act. Phil

lips v. T exas Dep’t of Protective &11

Regulat oryServs. , 25 S.W.3d 348, 353 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet). Further, a pare n t’ s enda nger ingcon

duc t towa rd on e s i bl i ng i s s uf f i ci en t to su ppor t term i na ti on of a p ar en t ’s r igh t s t o all of her childre n. Lucas v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 949 S.W.2d 500, 503 (T ex. App. —Waco 199 7, w rit d enied); see also Dir. of the Dallas County Child Pr otectiveServs . Units v. Bowling, 833 S.W .2d 730 , 733 (Tex. A pp.—D al l as 1 992, n

o wri t). The evidenc e su ppo rt s t he jur y’s find i n g th at the children ’s wel l-b ei ng was endan gered. T he

ev i de nc e i nd i ca testha t ap pe l l an t wa s a wa re of Du arte ’s pre vi ouscon vi cti on of i nj ury to a child. Appe ll

ant claim s t hat she was unawa re o f the co nviction; h ow eve r, the jury was pr es en ted wi th evi dence t o t he co nt ra ry. D esp ite t he likely know ledge of mat t er s t hat sho uld have caused her grave c oncern, she

did n ot take measures

to remove h

er chi ldren from Duarte’s presence. Al thoughF.D . d id no t suffer physical injury, he suffer ed no t only t he t ra uma o f beingpr ese nt at t he t ime of the assault, but most l i ke l y the em oti ona l trau ma of wi tne ss i ng Du arte ’s ab us e of V. D. as we ll. Appe llantwasi

n a state of den i al ab out the ab

use Duarte i nf l i cted up on her dau

ghter. She and he r family

re fused t o a ckno wledg e t hat Dua rt e injure d V. D. Appe llant co nt inued t o d efend he rhusb and an

d fi nan ci al ly supported him

after he wa s arrested for V.D.’s i nj uries . Appel

la n t expresse d a d es ir e to reu

ni te her c hi l dre n w i th D ua rte i n th e f uture. A ppe l l an t’s ex trem e s tateof deni al was evi dence that her ch

il dren were en

dangered. Appe llantspe cifically

enda nger ed V .D . by no t see king immediat e medica l tr eat ment f orher head injury. De spit e o bser ving ext ensive br uising and severe sw el l i ng of V.D .’ s h ead on Jan uary 12, appell

an t did not t ake her daugh ter t o t he doctor unt il

January 14. Once i

t was determi ned that V.D. was most li

kel y i nj ured in tentional ly , appell ant beca me ar gument at ive and12

deni ed that her husb and could have b een responsibl

e, creat in g various excuses f

or V. D.’s in

juries. Appel la nt prot ested her husb and’s cul pabi li ty even af ter she was con

f ron ted wi th h i s c on f es si on to hav in g in tentional ly in jured the ch

il d. Appe llantals o en da ng er ed t he ph ysic al an d emo t ional we ll-being o f bot h V. D. and F.D. durin

g her superv

is ed visits w ith t he childr en at t he Dep ar t ment a fte r t hey wer e r emove d and pla ced in f

oster ca re. A ppe l l an t woul d un ne ce ss ari l y sp an k a nd sl ap F. D. O n on

e oc ca si on , t o pr event F. D. f

rom clim bi ng up onto a smal

l tabl e, appell ant pull ed hi m down b y the le g, causi ng F.D. to hit his head . Ap pellant ch as t ise d F
. D. fo rha ving ca us ed V. D. ’s inju r ies an d D ua r t e’ s t ime in ja il. Appe llantal so call

ed her ch il dren “b rats.” Appel la

nt deli beratel y igno red f ee di ng i ns tructi ons f or V.D ., gi vi ng he r j uiceon s evera

l occ as i ons

i ns tea d of a special formula, as directed by the doct ors. Th i s res ul ted i n V. D. v om

i ti n g e x ce ss i

v el y du ri n g on e v i si t. The evi dence f actuall y a nd legally supports a fi

ndi ng that the phy

si cal or emotional well-being of t he childr en wa s end ange re d by appella nt’s conduct

or omissio ns o r t he enviro nment in wh ich ap pe llant pla ce d t he m. T his fin din g a lo ne is no t su fficie nt t o t er mi nate p arental rights; term i na ti on must also be in the best inter est of t he childr en. Te x. Fam . Code A nn . § 161.00 1(1), (2)
. Best Interes

t of the Children The T exas S upr eme Co ur t has r eco gnized t he fo llowing fac t or s t hat may be considered

i n de ter m i n i n g w h eth er ter m i n ati on i s i n a ch i l d’ s b est i

n terest: (1) desires

of t he childr en; (2) em ot iona l a nd phy si cal needs of the chi ldren now and in

the future; (3) em

ot iona l a nd phy si cal danger t o t he childr en no w and in the fu t ur e; ( 4) par ent al abilities o f the individuals se eking cu st o dy; (5) pro grams avai

lab le to assist these individuals t o p ro mot e t he best inter est of t he childr en; ( 6) plans13

f ort he childr en by the se ind ividua ls ; (7) sta bi l i ty of the hom e or propos ed

pl ac em en t; ( 8) a ctsor omissio ns of t he par ent ; and (9) an y ex cus e f or the acts or omi

ssi ons of the p aren t. Holley v. Adams , 554 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976). This l is t o f rel evan t considerati ons i s not exhaustive;other f actors
ma y be cons i dered

wh en appropri ate. Leal , 25 S.W.2d at 322. Likewi se, a fa ct fi nder i s not required to consi der al l of the l i sted f actors. Id. Se ve r al Holley factors are rais ed by

the record. At the tim

e of trial, V.D. and F.D. wer e t oo young to verbal ly express their desi

res. Howev er, th e ch i l dr en ’s

b eh av i or d uri n g s ch ed ul ed v i si ts w i th t he ir mo t he rsu gg es t s t ha t ne it he rch ild bonded to ap pe lla nt . T his same evide nce a lso s t ro ngly indicate s t hat app ellant d id no t meet t he
em ot iona l needs of the chi ldren . F.D. showed no em ot ion upon s eei

ng hi s m ot her and w

ould crawl out of the room

i nstead of to hi s m other wh en he be cam e ups et. Wi

tnesses i ndicated that app ellant
ma de no eff ort s to co nsol e F.D. on such occasions , but instead clai me d that he was an indep ende nt ba by. The testim

ony a ls o suggests that appellant would n ot be ab le to ful ly me et the phy

si cal needs of h er ch i l dr en . F or e x am

pl e, du ri n g on e s up er v i se d v i si t, a pp el l an t al l owe d V .D . to r ema in in

a wet di aper, i gn

ori ng both the cri esof he r da ugh ter a nd the prom pti ng of t he ca sew or ker t o c hange t he di aper. In addi

tion, as previ

ously noted, app ellant d id no t use pr op er feeding h ab i ts w i th V. D. de sp i

te previous in

struct ions. Appellant’s general

state o f den

ia l is the pr imary indicat or t hat t he childre n faced and would con

tin ue to f ace endan germ en t to t he i r ph y sical and em otional wel l -be i ng. The Dep ar t ment gave app el la

nt several chan ces to im prove her parenti

ng ski ll s and h er att itude ab out the a

bus e through va

riouspa ren ti ng cl as se s a nd cou ns el i ng se ss i ons ; h

owe ve r, a ppe l l an t sh owe d n o si gn s of14

i m pr ov em en t. Sh e c on ti n ue d to b l am

e F .D . f or V .D .’ s i

n j uri es an d f ai l ed to h ol d h er se l f or D ua rte acc ou nt able. In fac t , a ppe llant r epo rt ed t o c ou nselo rs t hat she w as t he vict im, not her childre n.

The ev i den ce f ac tual l y an d l eg al l y su pp ortsa f i nd i ng tha t term i na ti on was in the best in terest of the ch

i l dren
. The

ref ore, we c an

not f i nd th at the tri al courtre ver sibly

er re d by t er minating t he pa r en t - ch ild r ela t io nsh ip b et we en ap pe llant an d h er t wo ch ildr en . We o ve rrule appell ant’s fi rst iss ue o n a pp ea l. Exclude d Testimony Appe llantar gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed wh en it excl uded the testim

ony of Charl es and Barb ara L ev erett, appe l l an t’s gr andpare nts. A ppel l an t di d not de si

gna te Charles or B arb ara Lev er ett as p ot entia

l f act witness es i

n response to the Departmen t’s request for disc losure. A pp el l an t, in stead, decided to call

the Leveretts as wi

tnessesafter the trial

bega n. T he De par t ment obje cted t o t he pr es en t at io n o f t he Le ve r et t s’ t es t imo ny, an d t he t r ial c o ur t ex clu de d t he t es t imo ny. Appe llantcla ims on a ppe al tha t unde r T exas Rule o f Civil Pr oc edu re 193 .6 (a ), t he t est imony sho uld have been permi tt ed becaus e there was eithe r g oo d ca use for not disclo sing the wi tne ss essoon

er or that t he Depa

rtme nt di d not suf f er an y unf ai r surpri se. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193. 6. Rule 193.6 st ates: A pa r t y wh o fails t o mak e, ame nd , o rsu pp leme nt a d isc o ve ry re sp o nse in a t imely ma nne rma y n ot in tro duce i n ev ide nce the m aterial or inf ormation that was no t t imely dis cl osed, or offer t he t est imony of a w itnes s (o t her t han a na med pa rt y) who wa s n ot t imely i den tif i ed, un l ess the c ourt fi

nds that: (1)there

was goo d cause f

or the f ail ure to t imely ma ke , ame nd , o rsu pp leme nt t he dis co ve r y r es ponse ; or (2 ) the f

ai l ur e to t imely mak e, ame nd , o rsu pp leme nt t he dis co ve ry re sp o nse will no t un fair ly surprise or u nf airl y prej udice the ot her part ies. Id.15 Regardl ess of wh

ether the Depa rtm en t su f f ere d un f ai r s urpri se orwhet her app ellant had go o d c au se fo rt he de lay, t he co ur t sho uld have a dmitt ed t he t est imony because the best interest of chi l dren wasat stake
. SeeIn re

P.M.B. , 2 S .W .3d

61 8, 6 24 (Tex . A

pp .—H ouston

[1 4th Di st.] 1999, no p et .) . T he co ur t st at ed in In re P.M.B. that “in determi ni ng i ssu es re gar ding t he
co nse r va t o r ship of, po sses sion o f, and access to a chi ld, t he co ur t ’s pr imar y co ns id er at io n is alw ays t he best interest of the chi ld. Com pared to t he b est in

terest o f the ch

il d, technical

rules of p leading
an d practice ar e of l

ittle i mportance i

n determi ni ng ch il d custody i ssues.” Id. It is i n the co urt ’s pri mary i ntere st to hav

e as m uch evi den ce b ef ore i t as poss i bl e. Id. T he r efo r e, t he t r ial c o ur t sho uld have al lowed the te stim

ony of the Leveretts. Nonetheless, any err or t he t rial co ur t may have made was h arm l ess i n th i s ca se. Under TexasRule o f Appellat e Pr oc edu re 44. 1( a) , “N o ju dgment may bereversed on appeal on t he gr ou nd that t he t r ial c o ur t mad e a n e rr o ro f law un le ss the cou rt of appe als c onc l

ude s th at the error compl ai ned of . . . pr obabl

y c aus ed the ren

di tion of an i m proper j udgm

ent.” Tex . R. App. P. 44.1 (a)(1). Th ere f

ore, rev ers al i s n ot req ui red i f the tes ti mony i s m ere l y cu m ul ati ve an d n ot control l i ng. Mentis v. Barnard , 870 S.W .2d 14, 1 6 (Tex . 1994)
. Charl es and Barbara Lev

erett were to t estif

y a bout appell

ant’s ab il ities as a par ent and t he con di ti on of th ei r hous eh ol d w h i l e a pp el l an t wa s l i v i n g th ere with the childre n. T est imony by appellant’s mot her had a lread y been hea rd in appe llant’s fa vor . Ap pellant ’s mot he r t estif ie d that appella nt was a lovin

g and cari ng m ot her. Appel

la nt’s m ot her al so discus sed

t he co ndit ions o f the Leverett s’ home, re fut ing t est imony tha t t heir ho me was inappr op riat e fo r t he chi l dren
. Finally , t he Leverett s’ test im

ony was not cont rolli

ng becauseit o nly

enl igh tened the j ury on one of

the Holley16

f actors considered by

the jury : appella

nt’s parenti

ng ab il ities. The j ury h

ad evi dence on the other Holley fact or s and enda nger ment iss ues upo n which it c ou ld have ba sed its d ecisio n. T her efo re , t he
err oro f t he t r ial c o ur t did no t le ad t o t he r en de r ing o f an impr o pe rjud ge men t . We o ve rrule ap pe llant ’s se co nd iss ue o n a pp ea l. CONCLU SION

We co nc lud e t ha t t he ev ide nc e is leg ally an d fa ct ua lly

sufficient t o d et er mine that t he chil dren’s phy

si cal and em ot iona l we ll -bei ng wasenda nger ed a nd t hat t he t er minatio n was in the best in terest of the ch

i l dren
. Any

err or th at the tri

al cou rt m ay ha ve mad e b y excl udi ng the tes ti mony of the Leveretts was ha

rml ess. We, theref

ore, affi rm the term

in ation decree.

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: May

10, 2001 Do No t Publis

h