1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________________ NO. 09 - 18 - 00436 - CV

_____________________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.C . On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17 - 09 - 10801 - CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant June 1 appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor son, M.C. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2) (West Supp. 2018). In issues one, two, and three, June challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that June (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed M .C. to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being, (2 ) engaged

1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use the initials M.C. for the child and the pseudon ym “June” for M.C.’s m other. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). The trial court’s order of termination also terminated the parental rights of M.C.’s unknown father . The unknown father was represented by an attorney ad litem at trial.2 in conduct or knowingly placed M.C. with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being, or (3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court

- ordered parenting plan. In issue four, June challenges the leg al and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination of her parental rights was in M.C.’s best interest. Because we conclude that the evidence admitted at trial sufficiently supports the trial court’s order of termination , we affirm

. Background The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) removed s ix

- year - old M.C. , who is autistic , after a referral alleging neglectful supervision by June and June’s mother . According to the report, J une and her mother , with whom M.C. lived, had an altercation after J une confronted her mother about drug use

. J une tested positive for cocaine and her mother tested positive for methamphetamines. J une testified that M.C. was born on October 6, 2010, and M.C. and June initially lived with June’s sister . When M.C. was six months old, June was incarcerated, and M.C. went to live with June ’s mother

. June testified that she had previously been convicted more than six times for crimes that included “drug cases, pro stitution case s , [and] assault.” June also admitted that since M.C.’s birth she ha d been arrested at least twice for felony3 prostitution (third or more), twice for criminal trespass, once for felony manufacturing of a controlled substance, once for possession of cocaine , and once for felony aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury when she allegedly pulled a knife on her boyfriend during a domestic dispute

. June testified that M.C. was not living with her at the time of these criminal cases , but he was living with June ’s mother. According to June , she mistakenly believed her mother obtained custody of M.C. when June was on drugs and June ’s mother “had [ June ] sign some paperwork

. ” June testified that M.C. lived out of state for a while with J une’s mother and June visited them “two to three times a month[,]” and then June ’s mother and M.C. ultimately moved back to Montgomery County , where June would visit them “every couple of months

. ” According to a judgment dated April 24, 2017, June pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury to a family member and she was sentenced to five years in jail, probated for four years. According to June , in June or July of 2017, she went to stay a week with her mother and M.C. and she learned her mother was using drugs

. June testified that i n August of 2017 she went to her mother’s house and they had a disagreement because June wanted her son back and that is when June was arrested because she and her mother “had a physical altercation over [M.C.]” June testified that her mother was4 “high on meth” and that June did not think it was appropriate for M.C. to stay with her mother at that time

. A Judgment Revoking Community Supervision was admitted into evidence and it indicates that on May 15, 2018, June pleaded “true” to the State’s motion to revoke June ’s community supervision and she was convicted of assault causing bodily injury to a family member and sentenced to two years in jail. A t the time of trial , June was inca rcerated and s erving the two

- year sentence. According to June , she had been denied parole and t he earliest she could be released would be January 30, 2019. June also testified she was on probation when she signe d her service plan in October 2017, and nothing had been filed to revoke her probation at that time

. The service plan June signed was admitted into evidence , and it required June to provide her caseworker proof of employment and housing, to participate in and successfully complete a psychological evaluation by Dr. Paul Damin , to participate in and successfully complete a drug and alcohol assessment with BES Group Associates, and to submit to random drug testing. According to June , she arrived at the wrong time for the p sychological evaluation and returned at a re

- schedul ed time , but she was unable to stay long enough for Dr. Damin to complete the evaluation

. June testified that she went to take the drug and alcohol assessment but “the woman told5 me that I was there the wrong day [and] kept trying to reset me every time I went up there.” According to June , she submitted to one drug test that she failed, and she had taken “two X pill s when [she] first got release d from jail [and] they said [she] had low levels of cocaine in [her] system.” June admitted she did not obtain sta ble employment or stable housing as required by her service plan. According to June , prior to going into prison she did not complete any of the required items on her service plan. June stated that prior to her incarceration her abusive boyfriend would
not “allow [ her ] to do certain things at times [] ” to complete her service plan, she did not get a chance to complete her service plan , and s he stated she wants another chance . June testified that she knows she “messed up , but [she] didn’t real i ze how serious it was at the time.” June admitted that she told the parole board that , upon her release , she would
return to her abusive boyfriend and that she had no arrangements for employment

. June testified that since the parole board hearing she changed her mind a bout her arrangements upon release and she had requested that she be released to a halfway house that would allow for M.C. and her other child ren to live with her. June testified that she had no job prospects upon release and that she would apply for food stamps. June explained that she could possibly do secretarial work for her sister who owned a travel agency or do manual labor for the same sister who also remodels houses,6 and that she has helped her sister with these jobs in the past. According to June , while incarcerated she has taken the “Changes” class which address es anger, drugs, stress management, and parenting, but at the time of trial she still had two months remaining before she could complete the class. June also testified that she is “on the

wa it list for parenting and cognitive classes.” June agreed that she had two other children who d o not live with her , but she stated that prior to this case she had “never had a CPS case before.” June testified that she last saw M.C. about six months prior to trial, and that she had seen M.C. four or five times at visitations since the beginning of the CPS case. June does not know the identity of M.C.’s father. According to June , M.C. has many physical needs and she has never had any training on how to take care of him. Child Protective Services Investigator Casandra Davis testified that in September 2017 she was assigned to investigate allegations that M.C.’s grandmother, with whom M.C. was living, w as using drugs. Davis testified that as part of the investigation she interviewed June after June was released from jail. Davis testified that when she asked June about why June had been arrested , June told her that she had been at her mother’s house on th e day of her arrest and that she suspected her mother was using meth. A s part of the investigation , both June and her mother submitted to drug tests . B ased on Davis’s conversations with the two women, Davis7 felt it was not appropriate for M.C. to stay with June or June’s mother. According to Davis, June provided a name of a family friend who could take care of M.C. but after one night of M.C. being in that home , the family friend called Davis and said she could not handle the child . Davis testified that the only other friend or relative outside of foster care that would have been an appropriate placement for M.C. was June ’s sister, but the sister was unwilling to care for M.C

. Maria Garza also worked on the case for the Department

. Garza testified that she took over the case from the investigator. Garza developed a service plan for June , met with June , and had June sign the service plan . According to Garza, June did not complete any element of the service plan. Garza acknowledged that the service plan

was ne ver modified upon June ’s incarceration to include elements June could complet e while incarcerated. According to Garza, June did not provide any information that demonstrates June could provide appropriately for M.C., and Garza did not believe that M.C. would be safe if he were placed with June

. Garza testified that June ha d been incarcerated since May 2018 . According to Garza, June has not

seen M.C. since November 20, 2017. Garza testified that to her knowledge , June ha d not sent any letters or anyt hing to communicate with M.C. during her incarceration and June has ha d no contact with M.C. during her incarceration.8 M.C.’s foster mother (hereinafter Foster Mother), who is also a special education teacher , testified that M.C. was placed with her on September 7, 2017 , when he was six years old, and he had been living with her for the past year. According to the Foster Mother , when M.C. arrived at her house “his behavior was out of control[]” and he had taken off everything but his underwear on his way from the caseworker’s vehicle to the Foster Mother ’s house. The Foster Mother testified that M.C. is autistic and speech impaired , behind in grade level, and that s he enrolled him in a life skills class for chil dren with autism and intellectual disabilities. According to the Foster Mother , M.C. requires occupational and speech therapy, and sees a psychologist monthly. The Foster Mother believes that M.C. has “really progressed [,] ” and that he was doing better wit h a structured routine , which was something he did not have prior to coming into her car e . M.C. still has “sporadic temper tantrum[s]” that last at least thirty minutes , and if taken out of his routine , his bad behaviors surface

. M.C. requires a lot of extra effort , and the Foster Mother is trying to get him a one

- on - one paraprofessional teacher’s aide at school to assist him

. According to the Foster Mother , after M.C. visit s with June and June’s mother , he revert s to prior behaviors such as using profan ity, kicking, biting, pinching, and wetting the bed. Although the Foster Mother is not a permanent placement for M.C. , she has identified a worker at his daycare that works with M.C. daily before and after9 school and the daycare worker should be considered as a possible permanent placement

. The Court

- Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for M.C. testified that she is the guardian ad litem for M.C. and has been interacting with the child for almost a year. She testified she observed two visits between M.C., J une , and June ’s mother, and it appeared M.C. had a relationship with them. According to the CASA, M.C.’s current placement is meeting all of his needs and he has improved in his current placement. The CASA testified that she believes M.C. needs a lot of supervision and structure and that he is receiving th at in his current placement. The CASA has also
met and spoken with an individual who has come forward as a possible permanent placement for M.C. Although she ha s only seen them together on a minimal basi s , the CASA understands that the individual has spent a lot of time with M.C. at the daycare. The CASA agrees the termination of June ’s parental rights would be in M.C.’s best interest. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that June : (1) k nowingly placed or knowingly allowed M.C. to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being; (2) engage d in conduct or knowingly placed M.C. with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being; and (3) failed to comply with the10 provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for June to obtain the return of M.C. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O). The trial court found t ermination to be in the child’s best interest. June appealed. Standard of Review The decision to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, that is, “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007 (West 2014); In re J.L

. , 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). The movant must show that the parent committed one or more predicate acts or omissions and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (b) ; see also In re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d at 84. We will affirm a judgment of termination if any one of the grounds is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence and the best interest finding is also supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. In re C.A.C. , No. 09

- 10

- 00477

- CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3385, at **13

- 14 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont May 5, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a parental rights termination case, we must c onsider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief11 or conviction that the finding was true. In re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344

- 45 (Tex. 2009) ( quo t ing In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). We assume the factfinder re solved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so, and we disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved. Id. We “give due consider ation to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.” In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We must determine “‘ whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the tr uth of the State’s allegations.’” Id. (quoting In re C.H ., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002)). “If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfi nder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient.” Id. We give due deference to the factfinder’s findings and we cannot substitute our own judgment for that of the factfinder. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). The factfinder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. See id . at 109 ( quot ing In re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d at 86

- 87). Statutory Grounds for Termination In issue two , June challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that she engaged in conduct or knowingly placed12 M.C. with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being. See Tex. Fa m. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E). According to June , “[n]o evidence was provided from any witness that [ June ] knowingly placed or left the child in a situation she knew to be dangerous[,]” and that the case started when June confronted her mother about her mother’s drug usage and June tried to retrieve M.C. Termination may be ordered under subsection E if the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in con duct which endangers the physical or emotional well

- being of the child.” Id. Under subsection E , the relevant inquiry is whether evidence exists that the endangerment of the child’s physical and emotional well

- being was the direct result of the parent’s co nduct, including acts, omissions, or failures to act. In re J.T.G ., 121 S.W.3d 117, 12 5 (T e x. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet .) (citing In re R.D. , 955 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, pet. denied); Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protec t ive & Regulatory Servs. , 907 S.W.2d 81, 83

- 84 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no writ) ) . In this context, endanger means “‘ to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize. ’ ” In re T.N ., 180 S.W.3d 376, 383 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2005, no pet.) (quoting In re M.C ., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex

. 1996) (per curi a m )). A child is endangered when the environment or a parent’s13 conduct creates a potential for danger that the parent is aware of but disregards. In re S.M.L

. , 171 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.)

. Terminatio n under subsection E must be based on more than a single act or omission

— the evidence must demonstrate a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent. In re C.A.B ., 289 S.W.3d 874, 883 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). “Although ‘endanger’ means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less

- than

- ideal environment, it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffers injury.” In re T.N. , 180 S. W.3d at 383; see also I n re J.O.A ., 283 S.W.3d at 345 (concluding that endangering conduct is not limited to actions directed toward the child). The specific danger to a child’s well

- being may be inferred from parental misconduct. See Tex. Dep’t of Human S ervs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987) . Courts may consider parental conduct that did not occur in a child’s presence, including conduct before the child’s birth and after the child was removed by the Department. In re A.A.M. , 464 S.W.3d 421, 426 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.); Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)

. Generally, subjecting a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s physical and emotional well

- being. See I n re R.W. , 129 S.W.3d 732, 73914 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) . Although incarceration alone will not support termination, e vidence of criminal conduct, convictions, and imprisonment may support a finding of endangerment under subsection E. See In re A.R.M ., No. 14

- 13

- 01039

- CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3744, at * 2 1 (T e x. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 8, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d at 133

. In addition, a pattern of drug abuse will also support a finding of conduct endangering a child even if there is no evidence that such drug use actually injured the child. Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Se rvs. , 190 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). A history of illegal drug use and drug

- related criminal activity is conduct that subjects a child to a life that is uncertain and unstable, endangering the child’s physical and em otional well

- being. In re S.D ., 980 S.W.2d 758, 763 ( Te x. A pp.

— San Antonio 19 9 8, pet. denied); Dupree , 907 S.W.2d at 84 ; see also In re S.R ., 452 S.W.3d 351, 361

- 62 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (parent’s drug use may qualify as a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct endangering the child’s well

- being); Walker , 312 S.W.3d at 617 (illegal drug use may sup port termination under subsection E because “it exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or imprisoned[]” )

. A busive or violent conduct by a parent may also produce a home15 environment that endangers a child’s well

- being. In re J. I.T.P ., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The trial court heard evidence regarding June ’s pattern of drug use and drug convictions during M.C.’s lifetime, June ’s family violence assault convictions and physical altercatio ns with her mother and boyfriend, June ’s criminal history and incarcerations, and June ’s inability to provide proof of stable housing and employment. June ’s drug use, prostitution, incarcerations, incidents of domestic violence , criminal history , and emplo yment and housing instability prior to and during the case create a course of conduct from which the factfinder could have determined June endangered M.C.’s emotional and physical well

- being. See In re Z.N.M. , No. 14

- 17

- 00650

- CV, 2018 T e x. App. LEXIS 333, at * 16 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 11, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Boyd , 727 S.W.2d at 534; In re V.V ., 349 S.W.3d 548, 553

- 54 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); In re D.O. , 338 S.W.3d 29, 3 6

- 3 7 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2011, no pet.)

. Reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the termination findings under subsection E, th e trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that June , through her acts or omissions , endangered M.C.’s physical or emotional well

- being

. Further, in view of the entire record, we conclude the disputed evidence is not so significant as to prevent the trial court from forming a firm belief16 or conviction that termination of June ’s parental rights was warranted under subse ction E. We conclude the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that June committed the predicate act enumerated in section 161.001 (b) (1)( E ). Having concluded that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial co urt’s finding of endangerment under section 161.001(b)(1)(E), we need not discuss June ’s challenge to the court’s findings under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (O). See In re A.V ., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003) . We overrule issues one through three. Best Interest of the Child In her fourth issue, June challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination of her parent al rights is in M.C.’s best interest. According to June , there is testimony as to the bond sh e had with M.C. , and that the trial court should have sustained June ’s objections to certain testimony and excluded the objected

- to evidence that “contaminated” the best

- interest analysis. Trial courts have wide latitude in determining a child’s best inte rest. See Gillespie v. Gillespie , 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the child with his or her parent. In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A .,17 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(a) (West Supp. 2018). The Family Cod e outlines factors to be considered in determining whether a parent is willing and able to provide a safe environment for a child. Id. § 263.307(b). There are several factors that may be considered when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child, including: (1) the desires of the child, (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future, (4) the parental abilities of th e individuals seeking custody, (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child, (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody, (7) the stability of the home or proposed pl acement, (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate that the existing parent

- child relationship is not a proper one, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

- 72 (Tex. 1976) (setting forth the “ Holley factors” and noting “[t]his listing is by no means exhaustive[]”). No particular Holley factor is controlling, and evidence of one factor may be enough to support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. See M.C. v. Te x. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , 300 S.W.3d 305, 31118 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, pet. denied) (“Undisputed evidence of just one factor may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in the best interest of a child.”) (citing In re C.H ., 89 S.W.3d at 27); In re A.P ., 184 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006, no pet.). The best

- interest determination may rely on direct or circumstantial evidence, subjective fact or s, and the totality of the evidence. In re N.R.T ., 338 S.W.3d 667, 677 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, no pet.). If, in light of the entire record, no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in M.C.’s best interest, then we must conclude that the evidence is legally i nsufficient to support termination. See In re J.F.C ., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We have already explained that the evidence presented at the trial shows that June had a history of criminal behavior and a history of substance abuse. During the trial, June testified that for most of M.C.’s life , she was not the person caring for him , and the evidence indicated June had little contact with him after the Department removed M.C. because she was incarcerated. The trial court heard evidence of M.C.’s special needs, that h is needs were being met in his current placement, and there is a person for permanent placement who understood his needs because she worked daily with M.C. before and after school. Based upon the evidence of June ’s propensity for violence and history of su bstance abuse, the fact that she had been in19 and out of jail, that she never took much of a role in parenting M.C., and M.C.’s need for structure and routine, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that June does not have the ability or skills req uired to adequately care for M.C

. , and that June’s problems have interfered with her ability to be a full

- time parent for M.C. There is testimony in the record showing th at June cannot currently provide M.C. with a stable place to live, and that June does not have a stable work history

. W e conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best

- interest finding. As part of h er fourth issue , June complains that the trial court erred in admitting over objection (1) Foster M other’s testimony that M.C. would be at a risk for regressing if someone did not have the time or ability to provide M.C. with the extra effort he requires because such testimony is a speculative response by a non expert, (2) Foster Mother ’s testimony about what “they told” her about the necessity for keeping a routine and consistency is hearsay, and (3) the CASA’s testimony that she had seen M.C. interact with the person who was a possible permanent placement as the testimony was not relev ant and speculative. June cites no rules or case law supporting h er conclusory evidentiary arguments and only provides a record reference to one of h er evidentiary arguments. It is not our duty to review the record, research the law, and then fashion a leg al argument for an appellant when the20 appellant has failed to do so. Canton

- Carter v. Baylor Coll. o f Med ., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931

- 32 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Briefing waiver occurs when a party fails to make proper citations to authori ty or to the record or provide any substantive legal analysis. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Canton

- Carter , 271 S.W.3d at 931. Even though we are required to interpret appellate briefs reasonably and liberally, parties asserting error on appeal still must put f orth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of their argument. San Saba Energy, L.P. v. C rawfor d , 171 S.W.3d 32 3 , 338 (T e x. A pp.

— Houston [1 4th Dist. ] 2005, no pet.). Even absent briefing waiver, and even assuming without deciding that the admission of the objected

- to testimony was error , we cannot conclude that the admission probably caused the rendition of an improper termination judgment against June or that its admission probably prevented June from properly pre senting her appeal to this court

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a). To determine harm under rule 44.1(a), we must review the entire record, “considering the ‘state of the evidence, the strength and weakness of the case, and the verdict.’” Reliance Steel & Alumi num Co. v. Sevcik , 267 S.W.3d 867, 871 (T e x. 2008) (quoting Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese , 584 S.W.2d 835, 841 (T e x. 1979)). “[A]dmission . . . is likely harm l ess if the evidence was cumulative, or if the rest of the evidence was so one

- sided that the21 error likely made no difference.” Id. at 873 (footnotes omitted). In other words, a “successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence . . . admitted.” Tex. Dep’t

o

f Transp. v. Able , 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000). Based on the record before us, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence that is separate and apart from the objected

- to testimony that support s the trial court’s finding that termination of June ’s parental rights was in M.C.’s best interest

. In other words, the errors, if any, likely made no difference to the trial court’s best

- interest determination. See In re C.C. , 476 S.W.3d 632, 638 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2015, no pet.); In re D.O ., 338 S.W.3d a t 37

- 38; see also Nat

. Gas Clearinghouse v. Midgard Energy Co ., 113 S.W.3d 400, 410 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 200 3 , pet. denied) (holding erroneous admission of evidence in a bench trial does not warrant reversal when other record evidence supports the trial cou rt’s decision). We overrule June ’s fourth issue. We affirm the trial court’ s order of termination. A FFIRM ED

.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice22 Submitted on February 12, 2019 Opinion Delivered April 11, 2019 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.