IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00294-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.V.G.-P. AND A.O.G.-P., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law No. 1 

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-D20220178

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The father of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P. appeals from a judgment that terminated 

his parental rights.1

 See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1), (2). The father complains that 

the evidence was legally and factually insufficient for the trial court to have found that 

he committed the predicate acts in Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that 

termination was in the best interest of the children. Because we find no reversible error, 

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW—LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY

 The standards of review for legal and factual sufficiency in cases involving the 

1 The mother of the children did not appeal the trial court's judgment. Neither the mother nor the father 

attended the final trial.
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 2

termination of parental rights are well established and will not be repeated here. See In 

re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264-68 (Tex. 2002) (legal sufficiency); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 

(Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency); see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 Tex. 2009). If 

the evidence is sufficient as to one ground, it is not necessary to address other predicate 

grounds because sufficient evidence as to only one ground in addition to the best interest 

finding is necessary to affirm a termination judgment. In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232-33 

(Tex. 2019). 

BACKGROUND FACTS 

The department received a referral that there was domestic violence and drug use 

in the home of the mother and father. A.V.G.-P. was one year old and the mother was 

pregnant with A.O.G.-P. The department began an investigation but had significant 

difficulty contacting the parents. The mother gave birth at home to A.O.G.-P., but they 

were then transferred to a local hospital, where the department made contact with the 

mother and father. A translator provided by the hospital was used to communicate with 

the parents. The mother admitted to the use of marijuana and methamphetamine, with 

the methamphetamine use a week before A.O.G.-P.'s birth. The father admitted to the 

use of cocaine. There was no specific testimony regarding domestic violence in the home. 

A.O.G.-P.'s umbilical cord blood was tested for drugs. The umbilical cord blood 

was positive for methamphetamines, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, amphetamine, and THC. 

The children were removed from the parents at this time due to the positive drug test, 
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 3

the parents' admitted drug use, and the allegations of ongoing domestic violence. The 

caseworker testified that A.O.G.-P. had some withdrawal issues and side effects from the 

mother's drug use when he was first placed into foster care after the removal. 

Both parents were requested to complete services. The service plans had to be 

redone in Spanish but both parents signed their plan.2 The father did not participate in 

any of the services required by his service plan outside of completing one requested drug 

test. Visitation with the children was suspended due to the parents not attending the 

visits and not completing requested drug tests; however, the trial court ordered that the 

visits could commence again when two clean drug test results were provided by each 

parent.

The caseworker testified that the father communicated a desire to start visits again 

but did not complete the required drug tests or otherwise engage in services. He did 

eventually take one hair and urine test which was negative near the end of the 

proceeding, but failed to take any of the other drug tests that were requested.

SECTION 161.001(B)(1)(E)

In his third and fourth issues, the father argues that the evidence was legally and 

factually insufficient for the trial court to have terminated his parental rights on 

Subsection (E) endangerment grounds, which allows termination of parental rights if the 

trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent "engaged in conduct or 

2 The service plans were not admitted into evidence at the final trial.
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 4

knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the 

physical or emotional well-being of the child." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(E). 

"Endanger" means "to expose a child to loss or injury, or to jeopardize a child's emotional 

or mental health." In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). An 

endangerment finding often involves physical endangerment, but it is not necessary to 

show that the parent's conduct was directed at the children or that the children suffered 

actual injury. Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987). "Rather, 

the specific danger to the child[ren]'s well-being may be inferred from the parent's 

misconduct alone." Id. In our endangerment analysis pursuant to Section 

161.001(b)(1)(E), we may consider conduct both before and after the Department 

removed the children from their parent. In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

A parent's use of illegal drugs, and its effect on his or her ability to parent, may 

qualify as endangering conduct. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009). As a 

general proposition, illegal drug use may support termination under subsection (E) 

because it exposes the children to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or 

imprisoned. Walker v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617-18 (Tex. 

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

A parent's missed visits with a child and his failure to complete a service plan can 

support an endangerment finding because such conduct "generally subjects a child to a 
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 5

life of instability and uncertainty." In re A.R.M., 593 S.W.3d 358, 371 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2018, pet. denied). Failing to regularly participate in visitation can reasonably be found 

to be emotionally endangering to the child’s well-being. In re A.F., No, 07-19-00435-CV, 

2020 WL 2786940, at *7, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4152 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 29, 2020, 

pet. denied) (mem. op.). In general, a parent's conduct that subjects children to a life of 

uncertainty and instability endangers the physical and emotional well-being of those 

children. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 531.

Here, the father argues that there was insufficient evidence that he knew the 

mother was using drugs during her pregnancy or that the father and mother were even 

together prior to A.O.G.-P.'s birth. The investigator testified that the parents were 

together when the initial referral came in and that she attempted to reach both of them 

during the investigation. The investigator was able to interview both parents at the 

hospital after the birth of A.O.G.-P., where they each admitted to using drugs that were 

found in the umbilical cord screen taken from A.O.G.-P. It was not until several months 

after the children were removed that the father informed the department that the parents 

were no longer together. Thus, the trial court could have found that the parents were 

together prior to the birth of A.O.G.-P. and that the father was using drugs around the 

children and was aware of the mother's drug use during the pregnancy and take that into 

consideration as part of its endangerment analysis. See In re J.A.V., 632 S.W.3d 121, 134 

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.).
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 6

Further, the father did not regularly visit with the children from the time of the 

removal until visitation was suspended by the trial court approximately three months 

after this proceeding commenced. At that point, in order to reinstate visitation, the father 

had to test negative for drugs two times. The department requested that the father take 

drug tests, but he did not. After the father failed to take the drug tests, the trial court 

suspended visitation entirely approximately six months into this proceeding. The father 

took one requested drug test later in the proceeding which consisted of screening both

urine and hair, which was negative. The father did not otherwise participate in any 

services, although he contacted the department several times about wishing to reinstate 

visitation. A parent's missed visits with a child and his failure to complete a service plan 

can support an endangerment finding because such conduct "generally subjects a child 

to a life of instability and uncertainty." In re A.R.M., 593 S.W.3d 358, 371 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2018, pet. denied).

Viewing the evidence under the appropriate standards for the legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to sustain the 

trial court's endangerment finding pursuant to Subsection (E). Implicit in that 

determination is our recognition of the deference to be accorded the factfinder's weighing 

of the evidence and credibility determinations. See In re C.R., No. 07-19-00009-CV, 2019 

Tex. App. LEXIS 3082, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 16, 2019, pet. denied) (requiring 

such deference); In the Interest of A.V., No. 07-22-00340-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 2652 at 
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 7

*4, 2023 WL 3075943 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 25, 2023, no pet.). We overrule issues 

three and four. Because we have found the evidence was sufficient to support one ground 

upon which the termination was based, we do not reach issues one, two, five, six, seven, 

or eight.

BEST INTEREST

In his ninth and tenth issues, the father complains that the evidence was legally 

and factually insufficient for the trial court to have found that termination was in the best 

interest of the children. In determining the best interest of a child, a number of factors 

have been consistently considered which were set out in the Texas Supreme Court's 

opinion, Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). This list is not exhaustive, 

but simply lists factors that have been or could be pertinent in the best interest 

determination. Id. There is no requirement that all of these factors must be proved as a 

condition precedent to parental termination, and the absence of evidence about some 

factors does not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that 

termination is in the children's best interest. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). 

Evidence relating to the predicate grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1) also may be 

relevant to determining the best interest of the children. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27-28. 

The admitted illegal drug use of the mother and father was a substantial factor in 

the removal of the children. It was therefore a reasonable deduction for the trial court to 

determine that the father's failure to address the illegal drug use or to even participate in 
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 8

drug testing when requested and when required to regain visitation with the children 

established that the father lacked the motivation necessary to seek out programs available 

to assist him in promoting the wellbeing of the children. See In re A.B., No. 07-19-00180-

CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9110, 2019 WL 5199299, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 15, 

2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (parent's failure to complete services directly related to reason 

for child's removal, including substance-abuse assessment, supported finding that 

termination was in child's best interest because it gave rise to inference that parent did 

not have ability to motivate himself to seek out resources available to promote child's 

wellbeing). Taking drug tests when requested would have allowed the father to show 

that he was not using illegal drugs when his parental relationship with the children was 

at stake, but he did not do so.

Further, a parent's failure to regularly visit his children after removal may support 

a finding that termination of the parent's rights is in the children's best interest. See In re 

T.R.H., No. 01-16-00450-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12475, 2016 WL 6873061, at *8 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 22, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). This is because the 

failure to regularly visit one's children, especially young children, signals that the parentchild relationship is not an appropriate one and that the parent is unwilling or unable to 

meet the children's emotional and physical needs. See In re A.J.D.-J., 667 S.W.3d 813, 824 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, no pet.) ("Parental absence or lack of involvement 

is especially telling with respect to the best interest of very young children, like babies 
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 9

and toddlers, due to their inherent vulnerability and particular need for parental 

attention and nurturing."). A.V.G.-P. was approximately one year old and A.O.G.-P. was 

a newborn at the time of the removal. The father failed to even attempt to maintain or 

establish a bond with the children through visitation at the start of the proceedings until 

visits were suspended pending negative drug tests. Thereafter, the father failed to 

attempt to regain visitation by taking the drug tests when requested. 

Finally, the father did not attend the jury trial. When a parent fails to attend 

termination proceedings without a valid explanation, "the factfinder may reasonably 

infer that the parent is indifferent to the outcome." In re A.J.D.-J., 667 S.W.3d at 826. A 

parent's failure to attend the final hearing may support a finding that termination is in 

the children's best interest. See In re A.J.D.-J., No. 01-22-00724-CV, 667 S.W.3d 813, 2023 

Tex. App. LEXIS 1964, 2023 WL 2655736, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 28, 

2023, no pet.). A parent who drops out of participation in legal proceedings where their 

parental rights are at stake can be presumed to lack the interest, ability, and desire to be 

involved in their children's lives, which supports the trial court's best interest finding. 

Viewing the evidence under the appropriate standards for legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence, we find that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient 

for the trial court to have found that termination was in the best interest of the children. 

We overrule issues nine and ten.
In the Interest of A.V.G.-P. and A.O.G.-P., Children Page 10

CONCLUSION

Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2024

[CV06]