COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00099-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.P. AND 

B.P., CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 325-530796-13

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant A.H. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s termination of the 

parent-child relationships between her two young daughters, A.P. and B.P., and 

herself. In her four issues, Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the trial court’s endangerment findings, the finding that she failed to 

support the children in accordance with her ability for a year ending within six 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

months of the petition’s filing date, and the finding that she used a controlled 

substance in a way that endangered the children’s safety and also failed to 

complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program. In her 

conclusion, Mother summarily challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the trial court’s finding that termination of the parent-child relationships is 

in the children’s best interests. Because we hold that the evidence is sufficient to 

support the judgment terminating the parent-child relationships, we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

Moot Complaints of Original Judgment

Upon our abatement and remand of this case to the trial court, the trial 

court modified its written, ministerial judgment in a final judgment entitled “Order 

of Termination Nunc Pro Tunc” to more clearly reflect its rendition terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to the children.

2 Consequently, to the extent that Mother 

complains of the differences between the rendition and the original termination 

order, we overrule those complaints as moot.

Sufficiency of Endangerment Evidence

In her first two issues, Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient (1) 

to show that she knowingly placed or knowingly allowed her children to remain in 

 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 27.2; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,

206 (Tex. 2001) (stating that appellate court can abate the appeal to permit the

trial court to clarify the intention of its order); In re K.N.M., No. 02-08-00308-CV, 

2009 WL 2196125, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 23, 2009, no pet.) (mem. 

op.).
3

conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional wellbeing and (2) to support the finding that she engaged in conduct or knowingly 

placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the 

physical or emotional well-being of the children.3 As we have explained in 

previous cases,

Endangerment means to expose to loss or injury, to 

jeopardize. The trial court may order termination of the parent-child 

relationship if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the 

parent has knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to 

remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the physical or 

emotional well-being of the child. Under subsection (D), it is 

necessary to examine evidence related to the environment of the 

child to determine if the environment was the source of 

endangerment to the child’s physical or emotional well-being. 

Conduct of a parent in the home can create an environment that 

endangers the physical and emotional well-being of a child.

The trial court may order termination of the parent-child 

relationship if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the 

parent has engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with 

persons who engaged in conduct that endangers the physical or 

emotional well-being of the child. Under subsection (E), the relevant 

inquiry is whether evidence exists that the endangerment of the 

child’s physical or emotional well-being was the direct result of the 

parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, and failures to act.

Termination under subsection (E) must be based on more than a 

single act or omission . . . .

To support a finding of endangerment, the parent’s conduct 

does not necessarily have to be directed at the child, and the child is 

not required to suffer injury. The specific danger to the child’s wellbeing may be inferred from parental misconduct alone, and to 

determine whether termination is necessary, courts may look to 

parental conduct both before and after the child’s birth. A mother’s 

 3

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) (West 2014).
4

use of illegal drugs during pregnancy may amount to conduct that 

endangers the physical and emotional well-being of the child. A 

parent’s decision to engage in illegal drug use during the pendency 

of a termination suit, when the parent is at risk of losing a child, 

supports a finding that the parent engaged in conduct that 

endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. Thus, 

parental . . . illegal drug use supports the conclusion that the 

children’s surroundings endanger their physical or emotional wellbeing. A factfinder may also reasonably infer from a parent’s failure 

to attend scheduled drug screenings that the parent was avoiding 

testing because the parent was using drugs. As a general rule, 

conduct that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability 

endangers the child’s physical and emotional well-being.4

A parent’s abusive or violent conduct may likewise produce an 

endangering environment.5 Because the evidence supporting the findings under

subsections (D) and (E) overlaps, we consolidate our review of the sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting each finding.

6

A.P. was born in June 2010. B.P. was born a few weeks prematurely in 

May 2012. She was born with her intestines outside her body. In June 2012, the 

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) received a report 

from hospital staff that Mother and B.A.P. (Father) did not visit B.P. regularly or 

consistently during her hospital stay after her birth. Specifically, the hospital 

 4

In re J.W., No. 02-08-00211-CV, 2009 WL 806865, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth Mar. 26, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).

5

In re A.I.T-A., No. 02-13-00164-CV, 2013 WL 5967029, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Nov. 7, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re I.C.W., No. 02-12-00226-CV, 

2013 WL 173746, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 17, 2013, no pet.) (mem. 

op.); In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

6

See J.W., 2009 WL 806865, at *5.
5

report stated that Mother did not visit B.P. for two weeks, did not leave contact 

information with medical staff, and was not bonding with her. The report further 

alleged that both parents were using illegal drugs. The allegations were ruled 

unable to determine.

In October 2012, after the hospital released B.P. to her parents, TDFPS 

received a referral alleging medical neglect of B.P. because Mother did not take 

her to a scheduled doctor’s appointment in September 2012 or respond to the 

doctor’s office’s calls or letters. Mother also refused Early Childhood Intervention

even though B.P. was at risk of developmental delays. The allegations were 

ruled out.

In November 2012, Father dragged Mother by her hair across the 

courtyard of their apartment complex, causing injuries, and TDFPS received a 

referral. The referral included allegations of drug abuse, specifically, allegations 

of marijuana use by both parents and of Xanax abuse by Mother. The Child 

Protective Services (CPS) investigator testified,

When domestic violence [occurs] between family members 

and the children are present in the home, especially children under 

the age of five, they are not able to protect themselves from 

danger. Anything could happen, a glass could be broken, a parent 

could accidentally hit a child. So it’s very dangerous for children to 

be in an environment where domestic violence is going on.

Police officer Travis Bedare responded to the scene, and he testified that 

he saw Mother’s bruised arms and visible injuries to her back. He further 

testified that domestic violence is dangerous to children. Bedare spent twenty to 
6

thirty minutes asking Mother to leave the apartment with the children and to go to 

a shelter, but she refused.

TDFPS then opened a Family Based Safety Services (FBSS) case to offer 

the family services. An FBSS case operates without court involvement.7

Even though Mother refused to leave the apartment and move with the 

children to Safe Haven, she agreed to place the children with her mother 

(Grandmother) when TDFPS opened the FBSS case in November 2012. At that 

time, A.P. was almost two and one-half years old, and B.P. was about six months 

old.

The FBSS caseworker received the case from the investigator in 

November or December 2012. Mother agreed to participate in services, and the 

caseworker discussed the dangers of domestic violence to the children with her. 

Mother completed domestic violence group counseling but not individual 

counseling or an MHMR assessment, even though they were on her service 

plan. The FBSS caseworker testified that Mother did not benefit from the 

services because she had not made behavioral changes, as evidenced by the 

continuing pattern of domestic abuse and aggression between Mother and 

Father.

Officer Chris Allard testified that on May 11, 2013, he was called to 

Father’s home because Mother reported that he had thrown a rock in her back 

 7

See 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 700.705(b)(2) (2014).
7

windshield, breaking it. Father admitted that they had argued because Mother 

was not supposed to be there under the FBSS rules, but he denied that he had 

thrown a rock. The children, although present when the police arrived, were not 

in Mother’s car. The police arrested Father. Allard opined that when parents are

physically violent with each other or throw things, they create a dangerous 

environment for small children generally and that in this case, that was a 

dangerous environment for A.P. and B.P.

The FBSS caseworker testified that the parents repeatedly threatened to 

remove the children from Grandmother’s home, that they broke FBSS’s rules 

regarding supervised visits, and that TDFPS received third-party reports of the 

parents’ drug use. Mother refused a drug test in January 2013, about two 

months after the FBSS case began. In April 2013, she tested positive for 

marijuana. In late June 2013, TDFPS filed its petition.

The domestic disputes, however, continued even after TDFPS filed its 

petition. Officer James Richie responded to a domestic disturbance at Mother’s 

home in mid-September 2013. The children were not present. Mother reported 

that Father had kicked in her door and had wedged her up against the door 

frame. The officer testified that it appeared that the door had been kicked in with 

quite a bit of force. He further testified that Mother told him that she was afraid 

because Father had been violent in the past when he was angry.

In late October or early November 2013, Mother and Father had a verbal 

altercation at Target. He left her there. She reported that he had taken her car 
8

keys. Father was ultimately arrested on outstanding warrants. Richie testified 

that Mother and Father had engaged in a pattern of domestic violence.

The drug abuse likewise continued after TDFPS filed its petition. Jim 

Turnage, President of Forensic DNA and Drug Testing Services, Inc., testified

that Mother hair-tested positive for alprazolam and marijuana on February 13, 

2014, but her urine test was negative. Mother told him that she had been given 

Xanax three weeks earlier in a hospital. We take judicial notice that alprazolam 

is marketed as Xanax.8

The FBSS caseworker testified that she believed that the children were in 

a dangerous environment when TDFPS filed its petition

[b]ecause the parents continued with the domestic violence, the 

ongoing reports of the . . . angry outcries by [Father], not just to 

[Mother] but to other . . . persons as well, as well as the concerns of 

drug use that [TDFPS] received, as well as [Father’s] admitting to 

using marijuana. And [TDFPS] didn’t feel as though either parent 

was able to be protective or appropriately care for the children. And 

we do have two very young children, one with possible . . . medical 

issues. And [TDFPS] didn’t feel as though [the parents], at that time, 

had made the necessary behavioral changes, although offered those 

services and completing some of them[,] to be able to keep the 

children safe and protected.

She also testified that the parents’ threats to remove the children from their 

maternal grandmother’s home were also a concern. The FBSS caseworker 

opined that if the parents had taken either child to the parents’ home, that child 

would have been in a dangerous environment based on the patterns of domestic 

 8

See Tex. R. Evid. 201(b).
9

violence and drug use, the parents’ inability to protect or care for the two very 

young children, one of whom had possible medical issues, and the parents’ lack 

of positive behavioral changes after completing some of the services offered 

them by TDFPS.

The licensed professional counselor who saw Father for several sessions

testified that he saw Mother in only one joint counseling session and that she 

was argumentative, combative, and not interested in working with him or Father.

When Grandmother initially took physical custody of the children, she 

found B.P., who was six months old, lying nude on a urine-saturated blanket. 

Mother had no diapers and no clean clothes to dress her in. At that age, B.P. still 

could not roll over or sit up. The older daughter, A.P., had such severe bedbug 

bites that she still had scars at the time of trial.

Grandmother testified that Mother had left Father three different times and 

lived with her instead before the removal. Grandmother also testified that each 

parent had told her that the other one used drugs. She further stated that she 

had found Xanax in Mother’s wallet and marijuana in a baby bottle in Mother’s 

backpack when Mother was pregnant with B.P.

Grandmother also testified that in November 2012, Mother asked her to 

take custody of the two children so that Mother could move to Virginia to live with 

her father and get a “fresh start.”

Grandmother saw the marks on Mother’s body caused by Father’s

dragging her by the hair across the courtyard of their apartment complex.
10

Grandmother also testified that to the best of her knowledge, Father and Mother 

were living together at the time of trial. Grandmother testified that Mother’s home 

was a “dangerous place.”

Grandmother also testified that after the children were placed in her care, 

Mother had spoken inappropriately to A.P. on the telephone, calling her a 

“fucking brat” because she refused to tell Mother that she loved her.

The CPS conservatorship worker assigned to the case after the petition 

was filed testified that Mother and Father still tested positive for drugs in 

February 2014. She further testified that TDFPS usually wants the parents to 

have at least six months of sobriety before children are returned to them. The 

conservatorship worker testified that Mother and Father had an opportunity to 

achieve six months of sobriety but failed. The conservatorship worker also 

testified that Mother did not complete individual counseling or domestic violence 

classes although they were both part of her service plan. The conservatorship 

worker opined that the parents had not changed their behaviors; they still 

engaged in domestic disputes throughout the case. The conservatorship worker 

also pointed out that the parents arrived for their visits with the children together 

and left together, even though their visits were separate. The conservatorship 

worker testified that TDFPS believed that Father and Mother were together at the 

time of trial but that Mother admitted only that they were “talking.”

The conservatorship worker stated that her concern was that if the children 

were returned to their parents’ care, domestic violence in the children’s presence 
11

would continue. She also testified that Mother was not capable of permanently 

ending her relationship with Father to protect the girls and would place them in 

harm’s way.

Father admitted that he and Mother used drugs and fought when they had 

their first child but contended that “it ha[d] passed” and that they “have been 

slowed down.” Father testified that he, Mother, and others used cocaine after 

A.P. was born while she was also in the house. He denied that Mother used 

drugs during her pregnancies. He admitted that he and Mother had been living 

together for the three months preceding trial but stated that they had not fought 

during that period.

Father agreed that it is dangerous for children to be around drugs and

domestic violence.

The trial court heard conflicting evidence regarding whether Mother used 

drugs during her pregnancies but also heard undisputed evidence that her drug 

use continued even after the petition for termination was filed. The evidence 

further showed that Mother continually returned to a bad relationship with Father 

fraught with domestic violence, both physical and emotional, and that she was 

living with him at the time of trial. The evidence additionally showed that Mother 

had neglected the medical needs of newborn B.P. Mother did not visit regularly 

or consistently while the baby was still in the hospital after her birth and did not 

take her to a scheduled doctor’s appointment in September 2012 or respond to 

doctors’ inquiries after the at-risk infant’s release from the hospital. Mother also 
12

neglected A.P.’s medical needs by allowing her to contract a severe bedbug 

infestation and injured her emotionally by calling her an obscene name because 

she would not tell Mother that she loved her.

Applying the appropriate standards of review, we hold that the evidence of 

Mother’s drug use before and after TDFPS filed the petition to terminate; her 

frequent domestic disputes with Father coupled with her inability to permanently 

disengage from him to give the children a stable, safe environment; and her 

history of neglecting her young daughters is legally9 and factually10 sufficient to 

support the trial court’s endangerment findings against her. We overrule 

Mother’s first and second issues.

Sufficient Evidence of Best Interest

Mother’s only statement in her brief regarding the best interest finding 

appears in the conclusion. She contends, “No factfinder could reasonably form a 

firm belief or conviction that the termination of the parent-child relationship was in 

the best interest of the children based upon the evidence offered in support of the 

grounds alleged.” In the interest of justice as well as judicial efficiency, we will 

 9

See In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573–74 (Tex. 2005); In re J.F.C., 96 

S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002) (together setting out standard of review for legal 

sufficiency).

10See In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006); In re C.H., 89 

S.W.3d 17, 27–28 (Tex. 2002) (together setting out standard of review for factual

sufficiency).
13

address the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the best 

interest finding.11

In addition to all the evidence detailed above, Grandmother testified that 

B.P. is still “followed for health issues” and will see the surgeon again a year after 

trial. Grandmother further stated that at the time of trial, the girls were caught up 

with their immunizations and dental work and were healthy.

Grandmother testified that she has a good relationship with Father’s 

extended family and is willing to keep the children in contact with them. 

Grandmother testified that she would like to adopt the children, that she has the 

support of her two other adult children, that the children would not be safe if they 

were returned to their parents, and that termination of the parent-child 

relationships between the children and their parents is in the children’s best 

interest.

Grandmother also testified that A.P. was upset before and after her weekly 

visits with Mother. A.P. had “bouts of urinating” and “w[o]ke up in the middle of 

the night” seeking comfort after the visits. On one occasion, A.P. told 

Grandmother that she was not happy because “her daddy hits her mommy.”

The conservatorship worker admitted that the parents visited the children 

fairly regularly and that she had seen A.P. cling to Mother, asking her not to go at 

the end of weekly visits. But the conservatorship worker also testified that 

 11See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9.
14

Mother did not complete her support group and that she did not complete 

domestic violence class again after the petition was filed. The conservatorship 

worker further testified that there was no evidence of employment. She 

additionally testified that neither parent had asked TDFPS to investigate their 

home or employment status, nor had either parent told TDFPS of any long-term 

plan for caring for the children or ensuring their well-being. Finally, neither parent 

had ever asked how the children were doing outside of the regular visit. The 

conservatorship worker testified that termination of the parent-child relationships

is in the children’s best interest and that TDFPS’s plan is for Grandmother to 

adopt the children. The conservatorship worker testified that TDFPS had no 

concerns with Grandmother’s care of the children or her ability to protect them or 

to do what is appropriate and in the girls’ best interest.

The children’s guardian ad litem also recommended termination of the 

parent-child relationships and adoption by Grandmother.

Mother’s fairly recent drug use and codependence on Father despite his 

violence toward her, even after TDFPS had already filed its petition to terminate,

demonstrate the risks the children faced if returned to her care. Mother did not 

testify at trial; there was therefore no evidence about her plans, if any, for raising 

the children. Grandmother talked about her desire to adopt the children, the 

family support she had for doing so, and her recognition that the children also 

needed the stability of having their extended paternal family remain in their lives. 
15

Neither TDFPS nor the children’s guardian ad litem expressed any qualms about 

the children’s welfare in Grandmother’s custody.

Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and 

judgment and considering the nonexclusive Holley factors, we hold that the trial 

court could have reasonably formed a firm conviction or belief that termination of 

the parental relationships between Mother and the children was in the children’s 

best interests, and we therefore hold the evidence legally sufficient to support the 

trial court’s best interest finding.12 Similarly, reviewing all the evidence with 

appropriate deference to the factfinder, we hold that the trial court could have 

reasonably formed a firm conviction or belief that termination of the parental 

relationships between Mother and the children is in the children’s best interests, 

and we therefore hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the best 

interest finding.13 We overrule Mother’s contention that no evidence supports the 

best interest finding.

 12See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(2) (West 2014); J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 

at 573–74; C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27; Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 

(Tex. 1976).

13See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(2); H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at 108; 

J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d at 573–74; C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27–28; Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 

371–72.
16

Conclusion

Along with a best interest finding, a finding of only one ground alleged 

under section 161.001(1) is sufficient to support a judgment of termination.14 

Because we have upheld the endangerment findings and the best interest 

finding, we do not reach Mother’s third and fourth issues.15 Having overruled 

Mother’s issues challenging the findings on endangerment and best interests, 

which are dispositive, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 28, 2014

 14In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); In re E.M.N., 221 S.W.3d 

815, 821 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). 

15See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.