1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... Pursu antt o T exa s Rul e of A ppe l l at e Proce dure 9. 8( b) ( 2) , w e a re u si ng al i ases f

or t he nam es of

t he chi l d and t he parenti nvol ved i n t hi s case. 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F TE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 01 2- CV I N TH E I N TE R ES T O F M . F. , A C H I LD

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 3 23RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUC TI ON A ppel l antJam es appeal s th e tr i al court ’ s order t er m i nat i ng hi s parent al r i ghts t o hi s chi l d, M art ha. 2 I n t hree i ss ues , Ja m es ch al l enges t he l ega l an d fac t ual s uf

f i ci enc y of

t he evi den ce t o s upportt he t r i al co ur t ’ s fam i l y c ode sect i on 1 61 . 00 1( 1) t er m i nat i on groun d f i ndi ngs and t he t r i al court ’ s fi ndi ng t hat3 ... S ee T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). 4 ... A l t hough t he St at e has con vi ct ed Jam es for t he una ut hor i z ed us e o f a m ot or ve hi cl e o n a tl ea sttw o previ ous occ as i ons , t he rec ord i s notcl ea r i f he w as ser vi ng t i m e dur i ng hi s fi rstor second conv i ct i on w hen M art ha’ s m ot her b e g a n wr i t i n g t o h i m. 2 t er m i nat i on of Jam es’ s parent al r i ghts t o M art ha i s i n her bes t i n tere st. 3 W e wi l l a f f i r m. II. B AC KG ROUND A tt he t i m e of t r i al , M art ha w as approxi m at el y t hree years ol d. Jam es, w ho i s t he al l eged bi ol ogi cal fat he r o f M art ha, adm i t t ed att r i al t hathe i s her fat her . Jam es i s cur rent l y ser vi ng a f i ve- year

sent ence for

burgl ar y. Jam es has bee n a r res t ed m ul t i pl e t i m es for burgl ar y and t he unau t hor i z ed us e of a m ot or v e h i c l e . H i s c u rre n t sti n t i n j a i l i s n o t his fi rst. W hi l e h e w as s er

vi ng s t at e j ai l t i m e f

or t he unau t hor i z ed us e o f a m ot or vehi cl e, M art ha’ s m ot her began t o w r i t e l et t ers t o Jam es. 4 W hen he w as rel eased, t hey beg an a rom a n ti c rel at i onshi p t hatl ast ed for several years. M art ha i s a c hi l d of

t hatrel at i ons hi p. A t tri a l , b o th J a m e s a n d M a rth a ’s m o t h e r a d m i tte d th a t th e y w e re frequen tdr ug users bot h before and aft er M art ha’ s bi rt h. Jam es t est i fi ed t hat he sm ok ed m arij uan a a nd di d notw or k w hi l e M art ha’ s m ot her w as pregn ant w i t h her . A ccordi ng t o Jam es, he and M art ha’ s m ot her frequentl y sm oked3

m e t h a m p h e t a m in e a n d m a r iju a n a . E v e n t h o u g h h e h a d e x p e r ie n c e d m u lt ip le r un- i ns w i t h t h e law an d had been i ncarcerat ed m ul t i pl e t i m es, Jam es never so ughtan y type of

dr ug t rea t m entpr i or t o hi s con vi ct i on for burgl ar y. And al t hou gh Jam es deni es ever usi ng dr ugs aroun d M art ha, t he record i ndi cat es t hatbot h he and M art ha’ s m ot her us ed dr ugs w hi l e c ar i ng for bot h M art ha and M a rt h a ’s o ld e r

h a lf -b ro t h e r . B y J a m e s ’s o w n t e s t im o n y , h e u s e d d r u g s w h ile c a ri n g fo r M a rth a ’s o l d e r h a l f-b ro th e r. W h e n a s k e d a b o u t th i s fa c t , J a m e s ’s response w as, “Thi s w as notm y chi l d. ” Th e record al so i ndi cat es t hatJam es k n o w in g ly le ftM a rt h a w it h h e r m o t h e r a tt im e s h e w a s a w a re t h a ts h e w o u ld engag e i n dr ug use. M art ha’ s m ot her

t es t i f i ed t hatJa m es ha d a ng er i ss ues , an d a l t hough J a m e s ’s a n g e r

w o u ld s u b s id e w h e n h e w a s h ig h o n d r u g s , h is a n g e r w o u ld w orsen aft er

he w oul d “[ com e] d ow n off o f i t . ” S he sai d t hathi s post - dr ug- use anger coul d som et i m es l astfor days. A cc o rding t o M art ha’ s m ot her , Jam es a n d sh e w e re i n v o l v e d i n fre q u e n t bo u ts o f do m e sti c v i o l e n c e i n fro n t of b o th chi l dren w hi l e t he coup l e l i ved w i t h M art ha’ s m at er nal grandfat her . O ne such bou tpersuaded t he grandfat her t o br i ng of fi cers t o t he hou se and have Jam es “escort ed out. ” The grandfat her event ual l y asked Jam es t o l eave for good aft er th e c o u p l e h a d a h e a te d a rg u m e n t a n d t h e g ra n d fa th e r h e a rd fro m n e i g h b o rs t h a tJ a m e s w a s s e llin g d r u g s in t h e n e ig h b o r h o o d . A ft e r w a rd s , t h e c o u p le4

b ro k e u p . J a m e s h a s h a d lit t le c o n t a c tw it h M a rt h a s in c e s h e t u r n e d s ix m ont hs ol d. Jam es t es t i f i ed t hathe w i sh ed t o m ai ntai n pa rent al r i ght s bec aus e h e w o u l d l i k e to b e a p a rto f he r l i fe. Ja m e s a d m i tted tha t he co u ld n o t h o p e to ca re f or M art ha unt i l s om e t i m e a ft er hi s rel ea se , w hen M art ha w oul d be app roac hi ng s eve n ye ars ol d. Al t hough he t es t i fi ed t hathe w as cu r rent l y no t usi ng dr ugs and had t aken paren ti n g cl asses , t he C hi l d Prot ect i ve S er vi ces’ (C PS ) casew orke r t est i f i ed t hatt here w as no evi dence t hatJam es had com pl et ed any pa rtof hi s se r vi ce pl an. C PS rem ove d M art ha from he r m ot her’ s ca re a ft er

al l ega t i ons w ere m ade t h a tt h e m o t h e r w a s u s in g a n d s e llin g d r u g s . M a rt h a ’s m o t h e r h a s v o lu n t a r ily rel i nqu i shed her

r i ghts t o M art ha, bel i evi ng t hati ti s i n M a rt h a ’ s besti nt erest t o l i ve w here s he cur rent l y l i ves — w i t h M art ha’ s m at er nal gran dfat her w ho provi des and cares for M art ha and w i sh e s to adopt her . C PS ’ s casew or ker t es t i f i ed t hatt he grand fat her provi de s a s t abl e a nd po ss i bl y pe r m ane nthom e for bot h M art ha and her ol der hal f - brot her

and t hati tw as i n t hei r best i nt eres t s— em ot i ona l l y, fi nan ci al l y, an d ps ych ol ogi ca l l y— t o s t ay w i t h t he grand fat her and al l ow hi m t o pursu e a dopt i ng t hem . There w as al so t es t i m ony t hatt he grandfat her

w as concer ned t hat once Jam es w as rel eased, he i nt ended t o m ove hi m sel f

and M art ha t o K ansas.5

M a rt h a ’s g ran d fath e r tes ti fi e d th a t h e w o u l d p rov i d e sta b i l i ty a n d se c u ri ty for M art ha. He al so s ai d t hat i f h e w as al l ow ed t o a dopthe r , i tw oul d a l l ow M art ha t o l i ve i n t he sa m e h om e w i t h he r ha l f - brot her , w hom ac cordi ng t o t he grand fat her , s he get s “a l ong e xt rem el y w el l ” w i t h. The t r i al co urtt er m i nat ed Jam es ’ s parent al r i ght s, f i ndi ng by cl ea r an d c o n v i n c i n g ev i d e n c e tha t he kn o w i n g l y p l a c e d o r kn o w i n g l y all o w e d M a rt h a to rem ai n i n cond i t i ons or surroun di ngs t haten dang ered her p hysi cal or

em ot i onal w e l l -be i n g ; th a t h e e n g a g e d i n c o n d u c t o r k n o w i n g l y p l a c e d M a rt h a w it h persons w ho eng aged in c ond uctt hatendang ered her physi cal or

em ot i onal w el l - bei ng; and t hatt er m i nat i on of Jam es’ s parent al r i ghts t o M art ha w as i n her b e s t i n te re s t. S ee Te x. Fa m . Cod e Ann. §§ 161. 001( 1) ( D) , ( E) , 16 1. 001( 2) ( V er non Supp . 2009 ) . Thi s app ea l fol l ow ed.

III. B URDE N OF P ROOF AN D S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A pa rent ’ s r i ght s t o “ t he com pan i ons hi p, ca re, cu st ody, an d m a n a g e m e n t” o f h i s o r h e r c h i l d re n a re c o n s ti tu ti o n a l i n te re s ts “ fa r m o re preci ous t han any property r i ght. ” S ant osky v. K ram er , 4 5 5 U. S. 745, 7 5 8 – 5 9 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 7 (1 9 8 2 ); I n re M . S. , 1 15 S . W . 3d 534, 547 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ). “W h i l e p a re n ta l ri g h ts a re o f c o n s ti tu ti o n a l m a g n i tu d e , t h e y a re not absol ut e. Just as i ti s i m perat i ve for court s t o recogn i ze t he const i t ut i onal und er pi nni ngs of

t he parent - chi l d rel at i onshi p, i ti s al so essent i al t hatem ot i onal6

and physi c a l i nt e re s t s o f t he c hi l d no tb e s a c r i fi c e d m e re l y t o pre s e r ve t hat r i ght. ” I n re C. H. , 89 S. W . 3 d 1 7 , 2 6 (Tex . 2002 ) . I n a t er m i nat i on c as e, t he pet i t i oner seeks not j ust t o l i m i t parent al r i ghts but t o erase th em per m anentl y— t o di vestt he parentand chi l d of al l l egal r i ghts , pr i vi l eges, dut i es, a n d p o w e rs n o rm a l l y ex i sti n g b e tw e e n the m , e x c e p t fo r t h e ch il d ’s r i g h t t o i n h e ri t. T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 1 6 1 .2 0 6 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); H o l i c k v . S m i th , 685 S. W . 2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985 ) . W e s t r i ct l y s crut i ni z e t er m i nat i on proce edi ngs a n d stri c tl y co n stru e inv o l u n tary term i n a ti o n sta tu tes i n fav o r of the p a ren t. H ol i ck a t20–2 1; I n re M . C. T. , 2 5 0 S .W .3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 7 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). I n proceedi ngs t o t er m i nat e t he parent - chi l d rel at i onshi p broug htunder se ct i on 161. 001 of

t he fam i l y cod e, t he pet i t i one r m us tes t abl i sh one ground l i st ed unde r

s ubdi vi si on ( 1) of

t he st at ut e and m us tal so prove t hatt er m i nat i on i s i n th e b e s t i n te re s t o f th e c h i l d . T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 1 6 1 .0 0 1 ; I n re J. L. , 163 S. W . 3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2 0 0 5 ) . B ot h e l em ent s m us tbe es t abl i sh ed; t er m i nat i on m ay not be based sol el y on t he besti nt eres t o f the chi l d as de t erm i ne d by t he t r i er o f fa c t. T ex. D ep’ tof H um an Ser

vs . v. Boyd , 727 S .W .2 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 7 ). Ter m i nat i on de ci si ons m us tbe s upport ed by cl ea r an d c onvi nci ng evi denc e . T e x . Fam . C ode A nn. §§ 16 1. 00 1, 16 1. 20 6(a) . Evi dence i s cl ear7

and co nvi nci ng i f

i t“ w i l l produc e i n t he m i nd of t he t r i er

of fac ta fi r m bel i ef

or c o n v i c ti o n a s to th e tru th o f th e a l l e g a ti o n s s o u g h t to b e e s ta b l i s h e d .” I d. § 1 0 1 .0 0 7 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). D u e p ro c e s s d e m a n d s th i s h e i g h te n e d s ta n d a rd bec aus e t er m i nat i on res ul t s i n pe r m ane nt , i r revo ca bl e c han ges for t he parent and ch i l d. I n re J . F . C. , 9 6 S .W .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); see I n re J . A . J. , 243 S. W . 3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007 ) (co nt ras t i ng s t and ards for t er m i nat i on a nd m o d i fi c a ti o n ). I n revi ew i ng t he evi den ce for l ega l s uf

fi ci enc y i n pa rent al t er m i nat i on c a s e s , w e m u s td e t e r m in e w h e t h e r t h e e v id e n c e is s u c h t h a t a fa c t fin d e r c o u ld rea so nab l y for m a f i r m be l i ef or co nvi ct i on t hatt he grounds for t er m i nat i on w e re p ro v e n . I n re J . P. B. , 18 0 S. W . 3d 57 0, 57 3 ( Tex . 20 05 ) . W e m ust rev i e w a l l th e ev i d e n c e i n the l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e to th e fi n d i n g an d j u d g m e n t. I d. Thi s m eans t hat w e m ustassum e t hatt he fact fi nder resol ved any d i sput ed fa c ts i n fa v o r o f

it s f in d in g i f a re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e r c o u l d h a v e d o n e s o . I d. W e m us tal so di srega rd a l l e vi den ce t hata rea so nab l e f ac t fi nde r

co ul d ha ve d i s b e l i e v e d . I d. W e m u s tc o n s id e r , h o w e v e r , u n d is p u t e d e v id e n c e e v e n if itis c o n tra ry to th e fi n d i n g . I d. T h a t i s, w e m u st c o n side r ev i d e n c e fav o rab l e to t er m i nat i on i f

a reasonabl e fact fi nder coul d and di sregard co nt rar y evi dence u n l e s s a re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e r c o u l d n o t. I d.8

W e m u s t th e re fo re c o n s i d e r a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e , n o t j u s t th a t w h i c h fa v o rs th e v e rdict. I d . Butw e c ann otw ei gh w i t nes s credi bi l i ty i ss ues t hatde pen d on th e a p p e a ra n c e a n d d e m e a n o r o f th e w i tn e s s e s , fo r th a t is t h e fa c tfin d e r’s p ro v i n c e . Id . at573– 74. And eve n w hen credi bi l i ty i ss ues ap pea r i n t he a p p e l l a te re c o rd , w e m u s t d e fe r to th e fa c tfin d e r’s det er m i nat i ons as l ong as th e y a re n o t u n re a s o n a b l e . Id . a t573. I n revi ew i ng t he evi den ce for fac t ual s uf

fi ci enc y, w e m us tgi ve due d e fe re n c e to th e fa c tfin d e r’s f i ndi ngs an d notsuppl antt he j udgm entw i t h our o w n . I n re H . R . M. , 2 09 S. W . 3d 1 05 , 1 08 ( Te x . 2 00 6) . W e m u s td e t er m i ne w h e th e r, o n th e e n ti re re c o rd , a fa c tfin d e r c o u l d re a s o n a b l y fo rm a fi rm con vi ct i on or

bel i ef t hatt he parentvi ol at ed t he rel eva ntconduc tprovi si ons of s e c t io n 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (1 ) a n d t h a tt h e t e r m in a t io n o f t h e p a re n t -c h ild re la t io n s h ip w o u l d b e i n th e b e s t i n te re s t o f th e c h i l d . C. H. , 89 S . W . 3d a t28. I f, i n l i ght o f t h e e n t ire re c o rd , t h e d is p u t e d e v id e n c e t h a ta re a s o n a b le fa c t fin d e r c o u ld n o th a v e c re d it e d in fa v o r o f t h e fin d in g is s o s ig n if ic a n tt h a ta fa c t fin d e r c o u ld not rea so nab l y hav e f or m ed a fi r m be l i ef

or co nvi ct i on i n t he t r ut h of i t s fi ndi ng, th e n th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l y i n s u fficie n t. H . R . M. , 209 S. W . 3d a t108.9 I V. E VI DE NTI AR Y S UFF I CI E NC Y OF E NDANGERM ENT F I NDINGS I n hi s f i rsttw o i ss ues , Ja m es argue s t hatt he evi den ce i s l ega l l y a nd fac t ual l y i ns uf

f i ci entt o s upportt he t r i al co urt ’ s fam i l y co de se ct i on 16 1. 00 1( 1) ( D ) and ( E) endang er m entfi ndi ngs. End anger m entm eans t o expo se t o l oss or i nj ury, t o j eopardi ze. I n re J . T . G. , 1 21 S . W . 3d 1 17 , 12 5 (Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 3, no pet . ) . The t r i al courtm ay order

t er m i nat i on of t he parent - chi l d rel at i onshi p i f i tfi nds by cl ear a n d c o n v i n c in g e v id e n c e t h a tt h e p a re n th a s k n o w in g ly p la c e d o r k n o w in g ly al l ow ed t he chi l d t o rem ai n i n co nd i t i ons or s ur roundi ngs t haten dan ger t he phys i ca l or

em ot i ona l w el l - bei ng of t he chi l d. T ex . Fa m . Code Ann. § 1 61 . 00 1( 1) ( D ) . U nder sub se c ti on ( D ) , i ti s necessar y t o exam i ne evi dence rel at ed t o t he env i ronm ent of t he chi l d t o det er m i ne i f t he env i ronm entw as t he s o u rc e o f e n d a n g e rm e n t to t h e c h i l d ’s p h y s i c a l o r e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g . In re D. T. , 3 4 S .W .3 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ). C onduc tof

a parenti n t he hom e can crea t e a n e nvi ronm entt haten dan gers t he p h y s i c a l a n d e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g o f a c h i l d . J . T . G. , 121 S. W . 3d a t125. T h e t r ia l c o u rtm a y o rd e r t e r m in a t io n o f

t h e p a re n t -c h ild re la t io n s h ip if it f i nds by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he parenthas engaged i n cond uct or k n o w i n g l y pl aced t he chi l d w i t h persons w ho eng aged i n cond uctt hat end ang ers t he phys i ca l or em ot i ona l w el l - bei ng of t he ch i l d. Tex . Fa m . Code10

A nn. § 1 61 . 00 1(1 )( E) . U nder subsect i on ( E) , t he rel evanti nqu i r y i s w het her e v id e n c e e x is t s t h a tt h e e n d a n g e r m e n to f t h e c h ild ’s p h y s ic a l o r e m o t io n a l w e llbei ng w as t he di rectresul t of t he parent ’ s conduct, i ncl udi ng act s, om i ssi ons, a n d fa i l u re s to a c t. J . T . G. , 1 21 S. W . 3d at1 25. Ter m i nat i on under s ubs ec t i on ( E) m us tb e ba se d on m ore t han a si ngl e a ctor om i ss i on; a vol unt ar y, d e l i b e ra te , a n d c o n s c i o u s c o u rs e o f c o n d u c t b y th e p a re n t i s re q u i re d . Id .; D. T. , 34 S. W . 3d at634. Bec aus e t he evi den ce pe rt ai ni ng t o s ubs ec t i ons 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (1 )(D ) a n d (E ) is i n te rre l a te d , w e c o n d u c t a c o n s o l i d a te d re v i e w . In re T. N. S. , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 9 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); J . T . G. , 121 S . W . 3d a t126. To s upporta f i ndi ng of en dan ger m ent , t he pa ren t ’ s con duc tdoe s not n e c e ss a ri l y h a v e to b e d i rec ted at th e ch i l d , a n d the c h i l d i s n o t re q u i red to s u ffe r i nj u ry . Boyd , 7 2 7 S .W .2 d a t 5 3 3 . T h e s p e c i fi c d a n g e r to th e c h i l d ’s w el l - bei ng m ay be i nfer red from pa rent al m i sc onduc tal one ; an d t o de t er m i ne w h e th e r t e rm i n a ti o n is n e c e ss a ry, co u rt s m a y l o o k to p a ren tal co n d u c t bo th b e fo re a n d a ft e r

t h e c h i l d ’s b i rth . I d. ; I n re D . M. , 58 S. W . 3d 801, 812 (Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.). P a re n ta l a n d c a re g i v e r i l l e g a l d ru g u s e s u p p o rt a fi n d i n g th a t t h e c h ild ’s s u rro u n d i n g s e n d a n g e r h e r p h y s i c a l o r e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g . J . T . G. , 121 S . W . 3d at 12 5. Li kew i se, a parent ’ s i ncarcerat i on adds suppo rt t o a tr i al11

cou rt ’ s f i nd i ng thatt he chi l d’ s su r roundi ngs en dan gered her phy si ca l or e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g . Boyd , 727 S . W . 2d at533– 34. Thi s i s t r ue eve n t hough i m pr i sonm ental one do es not necessar i l y const i t ut e “engagi ng i n cond uctw hi ch endan gers t he em ot i onal or physi cal w el l - bei ng of a chi l d. ” I d. ; D. T. , 34 S. W . 3d at635– 36. Butt he St at e n ee d nots how i nca rce rat i on w as a res ul tof a course of cond uct endan ger i ng t he chi l d; i t need onl y show i ncarcerat i on w as p a rt o f a c o u rs e o f c o n d u c t e n d a n g e ri n g t h e c h i l d . Boyd , 72 7 S . W . 2d at 533 –34 . Thus , i f

t he evi den ce , i ncl udi ng i m pr i so nm ent , prove s a c ourse of con duc tt hatha s t he e ffec tof en dan ger i ng t he chi l d, t he requ i rem entof sh ow i ng t hatt he enda nge r m entof t he chi l d’ s phys i ca l or em ot i ona l w el l - bei ng w a s th e d i re c t re s u l t o f th e p a re n t’s c o n d u c t i s m e t. Id . Furt her m ore, evi dence of ex pos i ng a ch i l d t o dom es t i c v i ol enc e s upport s an end ang er m entfi ndi ng. Se e I n re M . R. , 2 4 3 S .W .3 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (ho l d i n g tha t t h e re w a s l e g a l l y an d fac tu a ll y s u ffi c i e n t ev i d e n c e o f bo th endan g e rm entgroun ds w hen, am ong ot her t hi ngs, t he evi dence show ed t hat th e m o th e r e x p o s e d h e r c h i l d re n to d o m e s ti c v i o l e n c e ). I n t hi s ca se , t he evi den ce s how s t hatJa m es us ed i l l ega l drugs be fore a nd aft er M art ha w as bor n. Jam es hi m se l f t es t i fi ed t hathe us ed dr ugs be fore a nd aft er M art ha’ s bi rt h . M art ha’ s m ot her al so t est i fi ed t o Jam es’ s dr ug use, her o w n d rug u se , a n d th a t b o th o f t h e m ex p o se d M a rt h a an d M a rt h a ’s o l d e r ha l f-12

brot her t o drug s . Sh e a l s o t e s t i fi e d t ha tJ a m e s k no w i ng l y l e ftM a rt ha i n her care, even t hou gh he knew she w as usi n g d rugs. M art ha’ s m ot her sai d t hat J a m e s w o u ld b e a f

fe c t e d b y h is m e t h a m p h e t a m in e u s e fo r d a y s , a n d t h a tt h is contr i buted t o hi s t em per and dom est i c vi ol ence i ss u e s. J am es i s al so an adm i t t ed reci di vi st— havi ng been i ncarcerat ed m u l t i pl e t i m es for t heft - rel at ed cr i m es . Ja m es i s cur rent l y i ncarce rat ed. And t here i s evi den ce t hathe k n o w i n g l y l e ft M a rt h a i n a n e n v i ro n m e n t , l i v i n g w i t h h e r m o t h e r , w here t he caregi ver

w as usi ng and sel l i ng dr ugs. G i v i n g d u e d e fere n c e to th e tr i a l co u rt ’s f in d i n g s, w e h o l d tha t a reasonabl e t r i er

of factcoul d have for m ed a fi r m bel i ef or convi ct i on t hatJam es know i ngl y pl aced M art ha i n cond i t i ons and engag ed i n cond uctt hatendang ered h e r p h y s i c a l o r e m o ti o n a l w e ll -b e i n g . S ee T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (1 )(D ), (E ); J. P. B. , 1 8 0 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 3 ; C. H. , 89 S . W . 3d a t28. A c c o rding l y , w e h o l d tha t t h e ev i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y an d fac tu a l l y su ffi c i e n t t o suppo rtt he t r i al c o urt ’ s envi ronm ent al endang er m entand cours e of condu ct endan ger m entfi ndi ngs. W e over r ul e Jam es’ s fi rstand second i ssues.

V. E VI DE NTI AR Y S UFF I CI E NC Y OF B EST I NTEREST F I NDI NG I n hi s t hi rd i ss ue, Ja m es argue s t hatt he evi den ce i s fac t ual l y i ns uf fi ci ent t o suppo rtt he t r i al court ’ s besti nt erestfi ndi ng. W e di sagree.13

There i s a st rong pres um pt i on t hatke epi ng a ch i l d w i t h a pa renti s i n t he c h i l d ’s b e st i n tere st. I n re R. R. , 209 S . W . 3d 11 2 , 1 1 6 (Tex. 2006 ) . Prom pt and per m anent pl acem entof t he chi l d i n a safe envi ronm ent i s al so presum ed t o be i n t he chi l d’ s bes ti nt eres t . Tex. Fa m . Code Ann. § 263. 307 (a) ( V er non 2 0 0 8 ). T h e fo l l o w i n g fa c to rs s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e re d i n e v a l u a ti n g th e p a re n t’s w i l l i n g n e ss an d ab i l i ty to p rov i d e the ch i l d w i th a s a fe e n v i ron m e n t: ( 1) t he chi l d’ s age and physi cal and m ent al vul nerabi l i t i es; ( 2) t he frequen cy and nature of out - of - hom e pl acem ent s; (3 ) th e m a g n i tu d e , fre q u e n c y , a n d circ u m sta n c e s o f t h e h a rm to t he chi l d; ( 4) w het her

t he chi l d h as been t he vi ct i m of repeat ed har m aft er t he i ni t i al reportand i nt er vent i on by t he depart m entor ot her age ncy ; (5 ) w h e th e r th e c h i l d i s fe a rfu l o f l i v i n g i n o r re tu rn i n g to th e c h i l d ’s hom e; ( 6) t he resul t s of

psychi at r i c, psychol ogi cal , or d e vel opm ent al eval uat i ons of

t he chi l d, t he chi l d’ s parent s, ot her fam i l y m em bers, or ot hers w ho hav e access t o t he chi l d’ s hom e; ( 7) w het her

t here i s a hi st or

y of ab us i ve or

as sa ul t i ve con duc tby t he chi l d’ s fam i l y or

ot hers w ho hav e access t o t he chi l d’ s hom e; (8 ) w he t he r

t he re i s a h i story o f sub stanc e ab us e b y the ch i l d ’s fam i l y or

ot hers w ho hav e access t o t he chi l d’ s hom e; ( 9) w het her

t he per pet rat or

of t he har m t o t he chi l d i s i den t i fi ed;14

(1 0 ) th e w i l l i n g n e ss an d ab i l i ty o f th e c h i l d ’s fam i l y to s e e k o u t, a c c e p t, an d co m p l e te c o u n se l i n g se rvi c e s a n d to c o o p e rate w i th and fac i l i t at e a n a ppropr i at e a gen cy’ s cl os e s upe r vi si on; ( 11 ) t he w i l l i ngn ess and abi l i ty of t he c h i l d’ s fam i l y t o ef fect p o s i ti v e e n v i ro n m e n ta l a n d p e rs o n a l c h a n g e s w i th i n a re a s o n a b le per i od of t i m e; ( 12) w het her

t he chi l d’ s fam i l y de m ons t rat es ad equ at e p arent i ng sk i l l s, i ncl udi ng provi di ng t he chi l d a nd ot her ch i l dren unde r

t he fam i l y’ s ca re w i t h: ( A ) m i ni m al l y adequ at e heal t h and nu t r i t i onal care; ( B) ca re, nurt urance , an d a ppropr i at e d i sc i pl i ne con si st ent w i th the ch i l d ’s p h y sica l an d p sy c h o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t; (C ) g u id a n c e a n d s u p e rv i s i o n c o n s i s te n t w i th th e c h i l d ’s sa fety; (D ) a sa fe p h y sica l h o m e en v i ron m e n t; ( E) prot ect i on from repeat ed ex p o sure t o vi ol ence even t hough t he vi ol enc e m ay notbe di rec t ed att he chi l d; an d ( F) an unders t andi ng of t he chi l d’ s need s and capab i l i t i es; and ( 13 ) w he t he r a n a de qu a t e s oc i a l s up po rt s ys t e m c on s i s t i ng of an ext end ed fam i l y a nd fr i end s i s ava i l abl e t o t he chi l d. Id . § 2 6 3 .3 0 7 (b ); s e e R. R. , 209 S. W . 3d a t116. O t her , nonex cl u sive f act ors t hatt he t r i er

of facti n a t er m i nat i on case m ay us e i n de t er m i ni ng t he bes ti nt eres tof t he chi l d i ncl ude (a) t he des i res of t he ch i l d, ( b) t he em ot i ona l an d phy si ca l ne eds of t he chi l d now an d i n t he15

fut ure, (c) t he em ot i onal and phy si cal danger t o t he chi l d now and i n t he fut ure, (d) t he pa re nt a l a bi l i t i e s of t he i nd i vi du a l s s e e k i ng c us t od y, (e ) t he program s ava i l abl e t o as si st t hes e i ndi vi dua l s t o prom ot e t he bes t i nt eres t of t he ch i l d, (f ) t he pl ans for

t he chi l d by t hes e o r by t he age ncy s ee ki ng c ust od y, (g) t he st abi l i ty of

t he hom e o r

propos ed pl ac em ent , (h) t he ac t s or om i ss i ons of

t he p a ren t w h i c h m a y i n d i c a te th a t t h e ex i sti n g p a ren t- c h i l d rel a ti o n sh i p i s n o t a p ro p e r o n e , a n d (i) a n y e x c u s e fo r th e a c ts o r o m i s s i o n s o f th e p a re n t. H ol l ey v . A d a ms , 5 4 4 S .W .2 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 1 – 7 2 (T e x . 1 9 7 6 ). T h e s e fa c t o rs a re n o t e x h a u s t iv e ; s o m e lis t e d fa c t o rs m a y b e in a p p lic a b le t o s om e c a s e s ; ot he r fa c t ors no t on t he l i s t m a y a l s o be c on s i de red w hen a p p ro p ri a te . C .H . , 89 S . W . 3d at 27 . Furt her m ore, undi sput ed evi dence of j ust one fact or

m ay be suf

f i ci enti n a part i cul ar case t o suppo rta fi ndi ng t hat te rm i n a ti o n i s i n th e b e s t i n te re s t o f th e c h i l d . I d. O n t he ot her ha nd, t he pres enc e o f

s ca ntev i den ce rel eva ntt o e ac h fac t or w i l l nots upports uch a fi n d i n g . I d. W e h ave al rea dy d et ai l ed abo ve t he evi den ce of Ja m es ’ s l ongs t and i ng course of

i l l egal dr ug use, t he m ot her ’ s dr ug use, and t he evi dence t hatJam es know i ngl y e xposed M art ha and her hal f - brot her t o t he coup l e’ s dr ug use. Jam es al so show ed cal l us di sregard for chi l dren i n general w hen con fronted w i t h h i s a n d t h e m o t h e r ’ s u s e o f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e a n d m a r ij u a n a i n frontof16

M a rth a ’s h a l f-b ro th e r b y s ta ti n g , “T h i s w a s n o t m y c h i l d .” R e g a rd i n g M a rth a ’s l i v i n g situ a tio n , M a rt h a h a s l i v e d w i th h e r m a tern a l g ran d fath e r an d h e r ha l fb roth e r si n c e sh e ca m e i n to fos ter ca re. B e fo re th a t, J a m e s h a d l e ft M a rt h a to l i v e w i th h e r m o th e r, w h o m J a m e s k n e w a t th e ti m e w a s a fre q u e n t d ru g u s e r, and t here i s evi dence i n t he record t hatshe sol d dr ugs. Regardi ng Jam es ’ s com pl et i on of t he se r vi ce pl an t hatCPS for m ul at ed for hi m , Ja m es t es t i f i ed t hathe ha d t ak en parent i ng cl ass es, butt he C PS ca se w or ke r t es t i f i ed t hat sh e had not rec ei ved an y c ert i fi ca t i ons of co m pl et i on or i nfor m at i on t hatthe parent i ng c l as se s he t ook ev en com pl i ed w i t h t he se r vi ce pl an’ s requ i rem ent s. W hen as ke d s pec i f i ca l l y a boutt he se r vi ce pl an, t he C PS casew or ker

st at ed, “I d on’ tsee any ser vi ces t hatI can say t hathe has com pl et ed. ” A l t hough Jam es t es t i fi ed t hathe s oughthe l p for hi s dr ug us e from pr i so n c ouns el i ng a nd i s cur rent l y no tad di ct ed t o drugs , he ad m i t t ed t hathe previ ousl y di scont i nued usi ng dr ugs dur i ng hi s ear l i er i ncarcerat i on and began us i ng a gai n aft er he w as rel ea se d. The C PS cas ew or ke r t es t i fi ed t hats he bel i eved t er m i nat i on w as i n M art ha’ s besti nt erestand t hatt he m at er nal g ra n d fa t h e r

s h o u ld b e a llo w e d t o a d o p th e r b e c a u s e t h e g ra n d fa t h e r c o u ld

“ p ro v id e the sta b i l i ty a n d the p e rm a n e n t ho m e tha t [ M a rt h a an d h e r ha l fb roth e r] n e e d .” T h e c a se w o rke r a l so e x p res se d c o n c e rns o v e r Ja m e s’s a b i l i ty t o rem ai n “cl ean” from hi s dr ug use.17

A s st at ed abov e, atthe t i m e o f t r i al , M art ha w as l i vi ng w i t h her m at er nal grandfat her

and hal f - brot her . T h e g randfat her i nt ends t o adop tbot h chi l dren and ke ep t hem t oge t her . There i s evi den ce t hatM art ha i s bonde d t o t he g ra n d fa th e r a n d h a l f-b ro th e r. J a m e s a d m it t e d t h a t h e w o u ld n o t b e a b le t o fu lly p ro v id e fo r M a rt h a u n t il “si x t o ni ne m onths” aft er hi s rel ease from i ncarcerat i on. H e al so adm i t t ed t hat t hi s t i m e p er i od c oul d pos si bl y be ex t end ed t o t he poi ntt hatM art ha w oul d be near i ng seven years ol d. A tt hatt i m e, M art h a w oul d have l i ved w i t h her m at er nal grand fat her for atl ea stfi ve yea rs con t i nuous l y. C o n s i d e ri n g th e re le v a n t s ta tu to ry fa c to rs i n e v a l u a ti n g J a m e s ’s w i l l i ngn ess and abi l i ty t o provi de M art ha w i t h a safe envi ronm entand t he H ol l ey fac t ors— i ncl udi ng he r em ot i ona l an d phys i ca l needsnow and i n t he fut ure, t he p o t e n t ia l e m o t io n a l a n d p h y s i c a l d a n g e r t o h e r in t h e fu t u re if

J a m e s a g a in beg i ns t o us e d r ugs onc e rel ea se d from i nca rce rat i on, the pa rent al ab i l i t i es of t he grandfat her

w ho i s seeki ng cust ody, and t he act s or om i ssi ons of

Jam es t h a tin d ic a t e t h a tt h e e x is t in g p a re n t -c h ild re la t io n s h ip is n o ta p ro p e r o n e , a ll o f w h i c h w e i g h i n fa v o r o f te rm i n a ti o n — w e c o n c l u d e t h a t i n li g h t o f th e e n ti re rec ord a nd gi vi ng du e c ons i derat i on t o e vi den ce t hat t he fac t fi nde r cou l d ha ve rea so nab l y found t o be cl ea r an d con vi nci ng, a fac t fi nde r co ul d rea so nab l y ha ve fo rm e d a fi rm b e l i e f or c o n v i c ti o n tha t t e rm i n a ti o n o f Ja m e s’s p a ren tal ri g h ts to18

M art ha i s i n he r

be st i nt eres t . W e hol d t hat t he evi den ce i s fac t ual l y s uf fi ci ent to s u p p o rt th e t ri a l c o u rt’s s e c ti o n 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (2 ) b e s t i n te re s t fi n d i n g . S ee Tex. Fam . C ode A nn. § 1 61 . 00 1( 2) . A ccordi ngl y, w e over r ul e Jam es’ s t hi rd i ssue. V I. C ONC L USI ON H avi ng ov er r ul ed Jam es’ s t hree i ssues, w e af fi r m t h e t r i al court ’ s order t er m i nat i ng t he parent - chi l d rel at i onshi p betw een Jam es and M art ha. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r 31, 2009