## 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 OPINION 1

---------- Appellant A.H. (Mother) appeals from the trial court ’ s termination of the parent
- child relationship s 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 th at 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 relationship s is in the children ’ s best interests. Because we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment terminating the parent

- child relationship s , we affirm the trial
court ’ s judgment. Moot Complaints of Original Judgment Upon our abatement and remand o f 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, t o 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, Mot her contends that the evidence is insufficient (1) to show that she knowingly placed or knowingly allowed her children to remain in

2 See T ex. R. App. P. 2 7.2; 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. 0 2

- 08

- 00 308

- CV, 2009 WL 2196125 , at *5

– 6 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth July 23, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.3 conditions or surroundings which endanger ed the ir physical or emotional well

being and (2) to support the finding that she e ngaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endanger ed the physical or emotional well

- being of the children. 3 As we ha ve explained in previous cases, Endangerment means to expose to loss or injury, to jeopa rdize. 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 physic al 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. Con duct 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 endange rment, 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 well

being may be inferred from parental misconduct alone, and to determine whether termi nation 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 201 4 ).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 decisio n 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 well

being. A factfinder may also reasonably infer from a parent ’ s failure to attend scheduled drug screenings that the parent was avoiding t esting 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

en dangering 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 i n June 2010. B.P. was born a few w eeks prem aturely in May 2012. She was born with her intestines outside her body. In June 2012, t he Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( T DFPS) received a report from hospital staff that Mother and B.A.P. ( Father ) did not visit B.P. regularly or

con sistently during her h ospital stay after her birth. Specifically, the hospital

4 In re J.W. , No. 0 2

- 08

- 00 211

- 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 wa s not bonding with her. The report further alleged that both pare nts 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 sched uled doctor ’ s appointment in September 2012 or respond to the doctor ’ s office ’ s calls or letters. Mother also refused E arly C hildhood I ntervention even though B.P. was at ri sk of developmental delays. The allegations were ruled out

. In November 2012, Fat her 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,
W hen 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 fro m 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 Bedar e responded to the scene, and h e testified that he saw Mother ’ s bruised arms and visible injuries to her back. He further testified that domestic viole nce is dangerous to children. Bedar e spen t twenty to6 thirty minutes asking Mother to leave the apartment with the children and to go t o a shelter , but she refused

. TDFPS then opened a Family Based Safety Services (FBSS) case to offer the family services. An F BSS 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

. A t 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 fro m the investigator in November or December 20 12. 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

coun seling 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 M other 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 physicall y violent with each other or throw things , they create a dangerous environment for small children gen erally and that in this case, th at was a dangerous environment for A.P. and B.P. The FBSS caseworker testified that the parents repeatedly threaten ed to

re move 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 beg an. In April 2013, she t ested positive for marijuana. In late June 20 13, 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 i n mid

- September 2013. T he children were not present. Mother reported that Father had kicked in her door and had wedged h er 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 i n the past when he was angry. In late October or early November 2013, Mother and Father had a verbal alter c ation at Target. He left her there. She reported that h e had taken her car8 keys. Father was ultimately arre sted 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, Presi dent 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 hos pital. 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]e cause the parents continued with the domestic violenc e, 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 [TDF PS] 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 necessa ry 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 ’ threat s 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 se rvices offered them by TDFPS. The licensed professional counselor who saw Father for several sessi ons testified that he saw Mother in only one joint counseling session and that she was argumentative , combative, and not interested i n working with him or Father. When Grandmother initially took physica l 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 bite s that she still ha d scars at t he 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
h ad 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 Vir ginia 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, Fa ther 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 telep hone, 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 drug s in February 2014. S he 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 m onths of sobriety but fa iled. The conservatorship worker also testified that Mother did not complete individual counseling or domestic violence classes although they were b oth part of her service plan. The conservatorship worker opined that the parents ha d not changed their beh aviors; 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 conservat orship worker testified that TDFPS believe d that Father and Mother were together at the time of trial but that Mother admitted o nly 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 childr en’s presence11 would continue. She also testified that Mother was not capable of permanently end ing 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 whi le she was also in the house. H e 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 n ot 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 show ed 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 show ed that Mothe r 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’ inq uiries after the at
- risk infant ’ s release from the hospital. Mother also12 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 th at 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 f requent domestic disputes with Father coupled with her inability to permanently dise ngage from him to give the children a stable, safe environment ; and her history of neglecting her young daughters i s legally 9 and factually 10 sufficient to support the trial court ’ s endangerment findings against her. We overrule Mother ’ s first and second i ssues. 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 pare nt
- child relationship was in the best interest of the children based upon the evidence offered in sup port of the grounds alleged.” In the interest of justice as well as judicial efficiency , we will

9 S ee 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 s tandard of review for legal sufficiency).

10 S ee 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 w ill 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 c hildren in contact with them. Grandmother testifie d 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 relationship s between the children a nd 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” seek ing 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 regular ly and that she had seen A.P. cling to Mother, asking her not to go a t the end of weekly visits

. But t he conservatorship worker also testified that

11 See 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 testifie d 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 relationship s 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 i s appropriate and in the girls ’ best interest. The children’s guardian ad litem also recommended termination of the parent
- child relationship s 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 ter minate , 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 f amily 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 relationship s between Mother and the children was in the children ’ s best interest s , and we therefore hold the evidence legally sufficient to support the trial court ’ s best interest finding. 12 Similarly, reviewing all the eviden ce 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 relationship s between Mother and the children is in the children ’ s best interest s , and w e 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.

12 See 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).

13 See 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; H olley , 544 S.W.2d at 371

– 72.16 Conclusion Along with a best interest finding, a finding of only one gr ound 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 interest s , which are dispositive, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 28, 2014

14 In 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.).

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