## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00116

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.W., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- 343

Before Morriss, C.J., S tevens an d Carter , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

____________________ *Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to S.A.W. 1 Though Mother ’ s parental righ t s to S.A.W. were also terminated, she does not appeal that result. When Mother, who suffered from both mental deficiencies and mental illness , unexpectedly went into labor on the front porch of her small trailer , 2 Father co axed her into the front yard whe r e he delivered the baby , S.A.W

. After h e clamped and cut the umbilical cord, Father wrapped S.A.W. in what he described as a clean blanket , 3 laid S.A.W. on the floor of the

s mall trailer near a portable heater , covered Mother with several bla nkets , an d l eft Moth er on the ground in the yard

. Mother and S.A.W. remained in these locations until emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived a bout two hours later and transported them to Good Shepherd Hospital in Longview

. While Mother and S.A. W. were in the h o spital , a referral was made to the Child Protective Services (CPS) D ivision of the Texas Department of Protective and Family Services (the Department) , which, after a short investigation , determined that Mother could not properly care for the child , tha t s he did not have a n appropriate place to live with the child, and that S.A.W. needed to be placed into the Department ’ s conservatorship.

1 We r efer to th e child by her initials, her birth parents as Mother a nd Father, and her othe r relatives by pseudonyms. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.8.

2 On the property wh ere Mother a nd Father resided there was a large r trailer where Mother’s stepbrother , Jack, r esi d ed, and a smaller trailer where Mother and Father resided

. At t rial, the smaller trail e r was variously referred to as a camper, the small trailer, the little t rai l er , and a “ fifth wheel

. ” We will refer to the trailer where Mother and Fath er resided a s the “small tra iler” and to th e trailer where Jack resided as the “la rge trailer.”

3 Reports in evidence from medical personnel on the scene after the birth indica ted that the baby was wrapped in a dirty towel.3

About one year after S.A.W. was removed , the trial court determined that termination of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s par enta l rights was in the best interest of S.A.W., terminated Mother ’ s parental rights b ecause she ha d a mental or emotional illness or mental deficiency that render ed her unable to provide for the needs of the child , 4 a n d terminated Father ’ s parental r ights on t h e three grounds set out in Section 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) , su bsections ( D), (E), and (O) , of the Texas Family Code

. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D), (E), (O) (Supp.)

. On appeal, Father asserts that th e evide nce is legally and factually insuffici ent to s upport the trial court ’ s findings on the statutory grounds and that the evidence is factually insufficient to support it s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the child ’ s best interest. Becau se (1) sufficient evidence supports the grou n d E finding and (2) factu ally sufficient evidence supports the best

- interest finding , we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

“ The natural right existing between parents and their children is of constitutional dim ensions. ” In re E.J.Z. , 547 S.W.3d 339, 343 ( T ex. App.

— Texar kana 2018, no pet.) (quoting Holick v. Smith , 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985)). “ Indeed, parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning ‘ the care, custody , and control of their children. ’ ” Id

. (quoting Troxel v. Granville , 5 3 0 U .S. 57, 65 (20 00)). “ Because the termination of parental rights implicates fundamental interests, a higher standard of proof

— clear and convincing evidence

— is required at trial. ” Id

. (quoting In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Te x. 2014 ) ). This Court i s re quired to

“ eng age in an exacting review of the entire record to determine if the evidence is . . . sufficient to support the termination of parental rights. ” Id

. (quoting In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d at 500).

4 See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.003(a) (Supp. )

.4

“ [I]nvoluntary termination statutes are strictly cons t r ue d in favor of the parent. ” Id

. (quoting I n re S.K.A. , 236 S.W.3d 875, 900 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2007, pet. den ied) (quoting Holick , 685 S.W.2d at 20)).

“ In order to terminate parental rights, the t rial court must find, by c lear and convincing evide nce, t ha t the parent h as engaged in at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child ’ s best interest. ” Id

. (citing T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001 (Sup p.) ; In re E.N.C. , 38 4 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2012)). “ ‘ Clear and convin cing e vi dence ’ is that

‘ degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to
t he truth of the allegations sought to be established. ’ ” Id

. (quoting T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 101.0 07 ) ( citing In re J.O.A. , 283 S.W .3d 3 3 6 , 344 (Tex. 2009))

. “ Th is standard of proof necessarily affects our review of the evidence. ” Id

.

“ In our legal suffic iency review, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings to dete rmine whether the fact

- finder reaso nabl y cou ld have formed a firm belief or conviction that the grounds for termination were proven. ” In re L.E.S. , 471 S.W.3d 91 5, 920 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (citing In re J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d 57 0, 573 (Tex. 20 05) (per curiam); In re J.L.B. , 349 S.W. 3 d 83 6, 846 (Tex. App.

— Texa rkana 2011, no pet.)). “ We assume the trial court, acting as fact

- finder, resolved disputed facts in favor of the finding, if a reasonable fact

- finder could do so, and disre garded evidenc e that the fact

- finder could ha ve rea sona b l y d isbelieved or the cred ibility of which reasonably could be doubted. ” Id . (citing In re J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d at 573).5

“ In our review of factual sufficiency, we give due consideration to evidence the tri al
court cou ld have reasonably found to be cl ea r and co n v inc ing. ” Id

. (citing In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). “ We consider only that evidence the fact

- finder reasonably could have found to be clear and convincing and determin e ‘ whethe r the evidence is such that a fact[

- ]f

inder co u l d r easonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the . . . allegations. ’ ” Id

. (quoting In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d at 108 (quoting In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002)) ) ; In re J.F. C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 264, 266 (Tex. 2002)

. “ If, in l ight o f the
ent ire record, the disput ed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm be lief or conviction, then the evidence is factual ly i nsuf f i cient. ” Id

. (quoting In re J.F.C. , 9 6 S.W.3d at 266). “ ‘ [ I ] n making this determination, ’ we undertake ‘ an exacting review of the entire record with a healthy regard for the constitutional interest s at stake. ’ ” Id

. (quoting In re A.B. , 437 S.W. 3d 498, 5 0 3 (Tex. 2014) ( quoting In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3 d at 26)). “ We also recognize that the trial court, as the fact

- finder, is the sole arbiter of a witness ’ demeanor and credibility, and it may believ e all , part, or none of a witness ’ testimony. ” In re A. M. , No. 06

- 18

- 0 0012

- CV, 2018 WL 3077784, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana June 22, 2018, pet. denied) (citing In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d at 109).

“ Despite the profound constitutional interests at st ake in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, ‘ the ri g h ts o f natural pa rents are n ot absolute; protection of the child is paramount. ’ ” In re L.E.S. , 471 S.W.3d at 920 (quoting In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2003) (quoting In re J.W.T. , 872 S.W. 2 d 189, 195 (Tex. 1994) )) ( citing In re M.S. , 115 S.W.3d6

5 3 4, 5 47 (Tex. 2003)). “ A child ’ s em otional and physical inter ests must not be sacrificed merely to preserve parental rights. ” Id

. (quoting In re C.A.J. , 459 S.W.3d 175, 179 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 20 15, no pet.) (citing In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 26))

. (1) Suffici e n t Evidence Support s t he Ground E Fi nding In his first issue, Father asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court ’ s findings under grounds D, E, and O. “ Only one predicate finding under Section 161.001[b](1) i s necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child ’ s best in terest. ” Id

. at 923 (quoting In re O.R.F. , 417 S.W.3d 24, 37 (Tex. App.

— T exar kana 2013, pet. denied) (quoting In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d a t 362) ( citing In re K.W. , 335 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2 011, no pet

. )) ) . Even so, when the trial courts findings un der grounds D or E are challenged on appeal, due process demands that w e r eview the evidence supporting the findings under at l e a s t one of those grounds when they are chall enged on appeal

. See In re N.G

. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 23 7 (Tex. 2019) ( “ We hold that due process and due course of law requirements mandate t hat an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of p a rental rights under S ection 1 61.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D) or (E) of the Fam ily Code. ” ). This is because termination of parent al rights under these g rounds may implicate the parent ’ s parenta l rights to other children. Id

. at 234 ; see T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( M) (providing as a ground f or termination of parental rights that the parent “ had his or her parent

- child relat ionship terminated with respect to another child based on a fi nding that the parent ’ s conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E)

. ” ).7

G r o u nd E permits the termination of a parent ’ s parental rights “ if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence [] that the parent has

. . . engaged in conduct

. . . whic h endangers the physical or emotional well

- being of the child

. ” T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( E)

. Endanger “ m eans more than a threat of metaph ysical injury or potential ill effects of a less

- than

ideal family environment. ” In r e E.N.C

. , 384 S. W.3 d at 803. “ ‘ Endanger ’ means to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize. ” Tex. Dep ’ t o f Human Servs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); In re L.E.S

. , 471 S.W.3d at 92 3 ; In re N.S.G. , 235 S.W.3d 358, 367 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2007, no pet.). “ It is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually su f

f e r injury. ” In re L.E.S. , 471 S.W.3d at 923. “ Under subsection (E), it is suff icient that the child ’ s well

- being is jeopardized or exposed to loss or injury. ” Id

. ( citing Boyd , 727 S.W.2d at 533; I n re N.S.G. , 235 S.W.3d at 367). “ Further, terminati o n under subsection (E) must be based on more than a si ngle act or omission. Instead, a ‘ voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent is required

. ’ ” Id

. (quoting Perez v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 148 S.W.3d 42 7 , 436 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2004, no pet.) (citing In re K.M.M. , 993 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 1999, no pet.))); see Boyd , 727 S.W.2d at 533; I n re N.S.G. , 235 S. W.3 d at 366

– 67.

“ [Subsection E] refers only to the parent ’ s conduct, as evidenced not o n l y by the parent ’ s acts, but also by the parent ’ s omissio ns or failures to act. ” In re S. K. , 198 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006, pet. denied); see In re N.S. G. , 235 S.W.3d at 366

– 67

. “ The conduct to be examined includes what the parent did both b e fore and after the child was born. ” Id. at 902; see In re N. S.G. , 2 35 S.W.3d at 367. T he endangering conduct may also occur “ either before or after8

the child ’ s rem oval b y the Department. ” In re Z.J. , No. 02

- 19

- 00118

- CV , 2019 WL 6205252 , at *11 (Tex. A p p . — Fort Worth Nov. 21 , 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (ci ting Walker v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Family & Protective Servs. , 312 S.W.3d 608, 616

– 17 (Tex. App.

— H ouston [1 st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) ). Failing to provide appropriate medical care for a child may also b e endangering conduct

. See In re H.M.O.L. , N os . 01

- 17

- 00775

- CV, 01

- 17

- 00776

- CV , 2018 WL 1659981 , at *13 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] Apr

. 6, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re S.G.F. , N o . 14

- 16

- 00716

- CV , 2017 WL 924541 , at *6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th D i st.] Mar

. 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op. ) ; In re D.V. , 480 S.W.3d 591, 601 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2015, no pet.)

. In our anal ysis under ground E, we may also consider a parent ’ s failure to complete relevant requirements of his service plan. In re Z.J. , 2019 W L 6205252 , at *11; In re U.H.R. , No. 07

- 18

- 0 0318

- CV, 2019 WL 818 74, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Jan. 2, 2019, no pet.) (mem . op.)

. The evidence r elevant to the trial court ’ s finding under ground E showed that Mother had undergone a psychological assessment b y a clinical psychologist, Donald E. Winste d, III, who testifie d that Mother ’ s verbal intelligence tested in the one percent rang e (meaning 9 9% of people in her age range tested at or above her), her non

- verbal IQ test ed at less than 0.1 percent , and her f u l l

- scal e IQ tested at 0.1 percent, which p laced her in the men tally defici ent range. He also testified that people with Mother ’ s IQ functi on on a third

- to fourth

- grade level. In addition
to her mental deficiencies, Winsted ’ s diagnostic impressions wer e t hat Mothe r suffered from trauma related bo rderline personality di sorder with antisocial, dependent, histrioni c , s chizoid , and schizotyp al p ersonality traits and depressive, sadistic, passive

- aggressive and self

- defeating features.9

From Father ’ s testimo n y , it appears that he met Mother about two y ears before S.A.W.

was born and had been with Mother for fifteen mont hs before the child ’ s bi rth. Although he recognized that Mother and her stepbrother Jack had some disabilities and that Mo ther was schizophre nic , Father mai nt ai ned that both of them were not as defici ent as people thought. He also testified that at the time Mother was not on medication but t hat he got her anti

- psychotic medicine reinstated. Fath er testified that he fell in love with Mother and th at they deci de d to be married 5 and have a family. Alt hough Father testified that he knew for a long time that Mother was pr egnant and that he told her all along that she was pregnant, he also testified that Mother believed it only after they had gone t o t he Wellness C ent er about three weeks before the birth and a doctor had told h er. Father maintained that he had trie d to get Mother to get medical help after he found out she was pregnant , but that she would not. Nevertheless, after the birth of S.A.W. , M other told CPS i nves tigator Kaila Rountree th at she did not kn ow she was pregnant unt il the baby ’ s birth

was immin ent

. On the mo rning S.A.W. was born, Father went to the large trailer to use a microwave to cook Mother breakfast. When he returned to th e s mall trailer, M ot her w as sitting on the front
por ch , and Father a sked if the cause fo r her sitting there was the baby . Mother told him to leave her alone and refused to go inside , so Fath er got several horse blanket s , 6 put them on the ground , and coaxe d M other to l ie on them

. He got five more bl a nk ets to lay on top of her and began

5 A p parently , Father maintained that they had an informal marriag e, sinc e t here was no evidence of a ce remonial marriage.

6 S.A.W. was born November 1, 20 20 , when , F a ther test ified , it was freezing cold.10

doing Lamaze ac tions ; according to Father, the baby was born quickly

. After he cut and clamped the umbilic al cord, Father took the baby inside , wrapped it in a blanket , and la id the baby on a pallet by a heater. He w en t back ou tside and asked Mother to come inside, bu t she declined and said her tummy was hurting

. Apparentl y , someone had called 9

- 1

- 1, because a highway patrolman and three deputies arrived while Mother wa s st ill outside . Father told them that everythin g w as okay a nd there was no emergency. When they told him an ambulance was comin g, he told them to have it t urn around because there was no emergency a nd that he would transport them himself. Nevertheless ,
an amb ulance arrived at the scene. Although Fat he r m aintain ed that the officers arrived about twenty minu tes after onset of labo r, the EMT ’ s report recite d that the law enforcement offi cers
repo rted that one of the neighbors had called them because Mother ha d g iven birth two hours before and was still si t t ing on t he ground screaming for help. Father also mai ntained that the birth only took fifteen minutes an d that , because of the rapidity of the lab or, he did not have time to call for emergency services. The EM Ts examined both Mother and S.A.W. In his r e p ort , one EMT described what he saw when he walked into the small trailer : [T ] h e entire right side of the [small trailer] is full of trash almost up t o the ceiling and smells awful and is di sgusting [. ] [ T]he y h ave no bed or furniture[. ] [ T]here is a s ma l l sheet t hat [Father] pulls back wher e the new baby is laying on the ground wrapped in a dirty towel next to a heater and has been in there by it[]self fo r at leas t 40 mins

. . . . [T] he baby has not fed in t he two hours and the m other tells us we can t ak e the baby but she does not really want to go to the hospital [. ] [ B]ut the m other is extremely conf used and we are told she is bipolar and schizophrenic [.] I then pick up the baby and make sure th a t it is do ing ok [. ]11

[ W]hen simulated (sic) it makes a bi g cry and is pi n k acting lik e a health y newborn[.] I che ck the u mbilical[,] it is prop er (sic) clam ped off. 7 The report of the EMT who examined Mother state d: The patient had been having back pain so they w ent to see the doctor a week prior and the dr t o ld them t hat she was pregnant , but the y didn ’ t believe her til l she starte d to bleed today and she thought she was having a period [. ] [ B]ut they laid her d own on the ground outside after her water broke and the n she ha d the[] baby[. ] [ T]he man she was s t a y ing wit h then clamped the umbilical cord o n both sides and cut i t in the mi ddl e and brought the b aby inside the [small trailer] and laid it down on the grou nd of t he [small trailer] wrapped in a towel near the heater [. ] [ T]hat was 2 hours ago and the p a tient has been laying on the ground outside the whole time covere d u p by a dirty b lanket and the ne ighbors called 911. Pt was confused on scene. Pt was disori ented to h er current age, the current year, the current president, and the current city she i s i n. Pt st ated she thought she was in Houston [T]exas. When asked h ow many previo us pregnancies/ births sh e has had she gave several different answers and can not explain how many children she has . Pt kept say ing currently born baby was a boy even after EM S told her the baby was a girl. The report also stated that Mother had feces and b lood all over h er , that she had already passed the placenta and palm size d blood cl ots , but that she was very minimally bleedi ng . Both Mother and S.A.W. were transported to Goo d S hepherd Hos pital in Longview. On that same day, the Department re ceiv ed an intake on Mother, F ather, and S.A.W. The next day, Rountree tried to interview Mother at the hospital, but F ather would talk o ver her and answer for her. Mother told Rountree t ha t she was bi polar and schizophrenic but was not on her medication s. Kerry Trull, the CPS casew orker assigned to the case, testified that , for most of the

c ase , Mother ha d voluntarily been at a location whe re she wa s supervised

. 8 Mother told Trull

7 Father attributed the smell to Ja ck’s end of the sma ll t railer, ma intained that the EMT lied about S.A.W

. being wrapped in a dirty towel , and testifi ed that he was “called a clean freak and germ fre ak

. ”

8 A few da ys a fter giv ing birth to S.A.W. , Mother was moved to a psychiatric hospital, and then to a r esi den t ial home i n another county.12

that sh e did not kn ow she was pregnant and did not know how she go t pregna nt

. Trull testif ied that , a t times , Mother ha d identified Father as S.A.W. ’ s father and , at other time s , ha d said that S.A.W. did not h ave a father. While in the hospital, Mother told Ro un t ree that he r home did not have electricity or
water and that the smell was pretty bad . She also told Rountree that she did not think S.A.W

. should leave t he hospital and that she would do better with t he doctors and nurses. Rountree
went to inspect th e s mall traile r, where she took twenty

- three photographs that were ad mitted into evide nc e. Father told her that the small trailer was going to be their prima ry residence. In addition, she took five photo graphs at the large trailer because Father told her t h at was wher e they used the restroom. R ountree testified that neit her traile r was a safe environment for a child. Father had lived with Mother in t he small trailer for months before S.A.W. was born

. Fa the r testified that s everal months after he met Mot he r , Mother ’ s father, Chuck, invited Father to move on to the property where t he y were living. The large trailer , where Chuck liv ed at the time , and the small trailer , where Mother and Jack lived , were bo th on the property. When Father moved into the sma ll trailer wit h Mother and Jack, he helped fix the roof and s ome holes in the fl oor. At some point , Chuck moved out of the large trailer , Ja ck mov ed into it , and Father sealed off the bedroom and bathroom of the small trailer where Jack had been living

. Fa t her told Sh arlytt Asher , the CASA 9 volunteer appointed t o the case , that h e sealed that area off because there w ere diff

erent areas that had fec es on them , and he boarded it up to get rid of the smell.

9 Court A ppointed S pecial A dvocate

.13

Fa ther also testified that there was mice feces in e v erything th ey owned. He also testified that when h e move d into the t raile r, Mother was wetting a nd defecating herself sometimes. Although he maint ained that he cleaned the small trailer when he moved in, when Asher viewed the trailer about a month after M ot her no long er lived there 10 and observed feces smeared on the wall in the

a rea that had been occupied by Mother and Father, Father told her it was because Mother sometimes had trouble. Asher also not ed that the small trailer had a smell to it and that th e cabinets ha d tape all over them. There was an air mattress o n the f loor with sheets and moving blankets. Father said he slept on the mattress and t hat Mother slept on the floor

. Father also told As her that he knew that neither the small trailer nor t he l arge traile r w as a proper place for S.A.W. and took her down the roa d to show her a camper that he said he was going to borrow until he could find an apartment. A little over two months later, after Fa ther ’ s paternity had been established, the t rial c ou rt entered or ders approving and adopting his plan of service as an ord er of the court. The plan of service required, inter alia , that Father demonstr ate to the Department that he could provide a safe, cl ean , and stable living environment for S.A.W.
Nev er th eless, the evidence showed that although Father represented to T rull and Asher 11 t hat he was pl anning on getting an apartment, he continued to live in either the small trailer or the large trai ler for th e entire year the case was pending

. Asher examine d th e small tra iler again three months after the case began because Father was still living there. She testified that it was significantly worse than it was on her first visit.

10 Mother did not return to the prope rty afte r S.A.W.’s birth.

11 At trial , Father again asser te d that he would get an apartment if S.A.W. were returned to him.14

She talked with Father a

bou t the small trailer , and he informed her that he w as g oing to fix up the large trailer and that was where he would re s ide with S.A.W.
Fou r months later, Father represented to the trial court that he was ready for a home assessment, and Asher and Trull sep arately returned to the property to assess the lar ge t railer. Ash er identified a number of safety issues that made that trailer unsafe for a small child : ceilings held together with duct tape that app eared to be collapsing ; no doors on the kitchen cabi net s with debris and animal feces in the cabinets ; no s to ve ; water a t the kitchen sink coming out of a plastic tube with a bucket under the sink to catch water ; no refrigerator ; no food other than outdated cans and lots of syrup ; and the master bedroom bei ng the only room that had furniture, heat , or air

. T ru ll observed t he same issues whe n she assessed the larg e trailer and , in a ddition , noted that there was mold on the ceiling , hazardous electr ical outlets , and exposed electrical wires taped to the ceili ng . Photographs taken by Trull on her visit confirme d As her ’ s and T rull ’ s testimony. Asher also testified that she had a deputy sheriff accompany her when she went to the large trailer for the home assessment. She explained that her relationship with Fa the r had deteriorated after she testified in court th at M other told her that Father ha d hit her . Later that day , Father texted her that she was going to regret what she had said in court . S he also recei ved
more texts from Father , so she felt it necessary to take the deputy with her

. Trull testified that
F at he r ’ s visitat ion with S.A.W. took place at the Henderson CPS offi ce and that security was always present because Father made numerous t hreats and veiled threats.15

Father ’ s plan of service also required hi m to provide the Department with proof of his inco me , take parent ing classes , submit to a psychological ev aluation and follo w all recommendations, participate in individual counseling , a nd maintain appropriate behavior

. After his psychological evaluati on , he was also required to take one

- on - one parenting c l a sses , psych iatric testing reevaluation by Dr. Winste d, and anger manag ement classes. Trull attempted to discuss these requirements with Father once a month, but he insisted that he did not need the

ser vices. Although Father completed the initial pare nt in g cl asses, Trull testified that he had not demonstra ted what he learne d ; struggled with feeding , dressing and undressing S.A.W

. ; and struggled with changing her diaper

. When asked what he learned in th e parenting classes, Father testified that he had ch il dren who we re grown and that he had no need to learn an ything. Trul l also testified t hat Father had not provided proof of income, had not demonst rated an abili ty to keep S.A.W. safe, and had not worked any of his other services. Although Father sought t o characteriz e his relationship with Mother as one in which he loved and cared for her and had rescued her from mistreatment by her father , the evidenc e supported a finding that the relationship was on e i n which he abused and neglecte d the needs of Mothe r , a person wit h a disability and one about three deca des his junior

. A s applicable to this

case, “ ‘ [p]erson with a disability ’ means a person with a mental, physical, or intellectual or developmental d isa bility that substantially impairs the person ’ s ability to provide adequately fo r the per so n ’ s care or pr otection and who is

. . . 18 years of age or older. ” T EX
. H UMAN R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 48.002(8 ) ( A). “ Abuse ” can mean either “ the ne gligent or willful in fli ction of injury

. . . with resulting physical or emotional harm or pain to

. . . [a] per so n w ith a disab ility by the16

person ’ s caretaker, family member, or other ind ividual who has an ongoing relationship with the
person , ” or “ sex ual abuse of

. . . [a] p ers on with a disability

. . . committed by the person ’ s caretaker, family membe r, or other in div idual who h as an ongoing relationship with the person. ”
T EX
. H UMAN R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 48.0 02(2). “ Neglect ” includes the failure of a caretaker to provide “ the g ood s or services, including medical services, which are necessary to avoid phys ical
or emot io nal harm or pa in

. ” T EX
. H UMAN R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 48.002(4). The evidence showed that Fathe r had an ongoing relationship with Mother and was her self

- proclaimed ca ret aker and that Mother suffered from mental and intellectual disabilities th at substantial ly im paired her ability to adequately provide for her care and protection. Although Father characterized the decision to have a baby (and, necessarily , to engage in se xual intercourse) as mutual and consensual, other evidence showed that Mot her did not kn ow sh e was
pregn ant or how she got pregnant and that the decision was neit her mutual nor con sensual. In addition, although Father kn ew that Mother was pregnant , he con tinued to have her sl eep on the floor of a small trailer with feces on the walls, and h e fail ed to ensur e that she received adequate
pre - natal medical care, which endangered both M other and S.A.W. Further, Father failed to call emergency services when Mot her began to go into labor , choosing instead to deliver the baby himself w ithout medica l assi stance or b ackup. Even if Father ’ s testimony that the baby was born fifteen minutes af

ter the onset of labor were believed, Fath er allowed Mother to l ie ou tsid e i n dirty blankets on a cold morning for over two hours and wrapped S.A. W. in a dirty tow el and laid her i nside the unsanitary trailer for two hours without cleanin g Mother and witho ut seeking17

medical treatment for either of them. Then, when sherif f ’ s de put ies arrived two hours after the birth and told him EMTs were on the w ay, Father told th em to tell the EM Ts not to come. The trial court could consider Father ’ s history of abuse a nd neglect of Mother before and during her pregnancy for the purposes of gro und E

. See In re Z.M. , 456 S.W.3d 677, 686 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015 , no pet.)

. This ab usiv e and negle ctful conduct , which endangered both Mother and S.A.W. duri ng the pre gnancy , w as continued both during and immediate ly after the birth of S.A.W. and whi le the case was pending

. Although Father continually represented tha t he would rent an a part ment, the o nly homes that he offered for S.A.W. during the case were the

sma ll and large trail ers, both of which were unsanitary and presented other unacceptabl e s afety issues . In addition, Father failed to demonstrate that he lear ned any parenting sk ills from the i nitial parenting classes and failed to participate in one - on - one parenting session s, individual counsel ing, and further psychiatric evaluation, all o f which w ere designed to correct his endangering conduct. The trial c ourt could also con si der these omiss ions by Father for the purposes of ground E. Based on this record, we find that legal ly and factually sufficient evidence s upported the trial court ’ s fi nding under ground E. Since there was sufficient evidence supportin g the trial
court ’ s f indi ng under gr ound E, we need no t revie w its findings under grounds D and O. J.T . v. Tex

. Dep ’ t of Family and Protective Serv s . , N o . 03

- 21

- 00070

- CV , 2021 WL 267205 5 , at *9 (Tex. App.

— Austin June 30, 2021 , no pet.) (mem. op.); In re M.F. , N o . 14

- 19

- 0096 4

- CV , 2020
WL 28 32166 , at *8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] May 28, 20 20, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

. We overrule Father ’ s f

irst issue.18

(2) Factually Sufficient Evidenc e Supports the Best

- Interest Finding Father also ch allenges the factual sufficiency of th e evi d ence suppo rting the trial court ’ s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of S.A.W. Father points to the evidence that he deliv er ed the child and wrapped it in a towel to keep it warm, that he took parenting classes an d v i sited the child , that he was distraught over the removal of the c hild, that he pai d for the paternity test, and that there was no evidence of substance abuse

. H ow ever, even if this evidence would not support a b est interest finding , it is not so sig ni fic a nt that th e trial
court could not, in light of the entire record , have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child ’ s best int er est. See In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d at 266.

“ Ther e is a strong presumption that keeping a ch i ld with a parent is in the child ’ s best interest. ” In re J.A.S. , Jr. , No. 13

- 12

- 00612

- C V, 2013 WL 782692, at *7 (Tex . App.

— Corpus Christi Feb. 28, 2013, pet. de ni ed) (mem. op.) (citing In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3 d 112 , 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). “ Ter mi nat i on ‘ can ne ver be justified without the most solid and substantial

reaso ns. ’ ” In re N.L. D. , 412 S.W.3d 810, 822 ( Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (quoting Wile y v. Spratlan , 543 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex. 1976) ). In determining the best interests of th e c h ild, court s consider the following Holley factors: (1) the desires of t he child, (2) the emotional and physical n eeds of the child now and in the future, (3) the e motional and physical danger to the child no w and in the future, (4) the parental abili ti es o f the indi viduals seeking custody, (5) the programs available to assist these individual s, (6) the plans for the child by these individuals, (7) the stability of t he home, (8) the acts or omissions of the pa rent that may indicate the existing parent

- ch ild relationsh ip is not a proper one, and (9) any excuse for the acts or om issions of the pa rent.19

Id. at 818

– 19 (c iting Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

– 72 (T ex . 1976)); see In re E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d 796, 807 ( Tex. 2012); see also T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A N N
. § 2 63.307(b). Further, we may consider evidence used to support the groun ds for terminatio n of parental rights in t he best

interest analysis. In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3 d at 28. S.A.W. was only one year old at the time o f trial, so she was too young to verba li ze h er desires . However, since S.A.W. was about three months old, she had been p laced with her hal f

sister, Ann, and Ann ’ s family. Asher testified that S.A.W. was ve ry bonde d and attached to Ann and that , when Ann le ft the room, S.A.W. bec a me distraugh t

. S h e also tes tified that Ann ha d other children who consider e d S.A.W. their baby s ister. From this evidence, the trial cou rt could infer that S.A.W. would prefer t o stay with Ann ’ s family. See In re B.H.R. , 535 S.W.3d 114, 123 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2017 , no p et.); In r e K.O. , 488 S.W.3d 829, 840 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2016, p et. denied )

. This fac tor weighs in favo r of termination. The evidence also showed that Ann an d h er husband gave up two other fo ster children previously placed with them in order to ca re fo r S.A.W. W hile in their care, S.A.W. ha d begun to walk, talk, make hand signals , and cal l Ann “ Mama ” and Ann ’ s husband “ Da

- Da. ” In add ition, Ann and her husban d h a d cousins, grandparen ts, aunts, and uncles in the area

. As seen above, Father ’ s condu ct be f ore, durin g, and after the birth of S.A. W. endangered the physical and emotional well

- bei ng of S.A.W. Further, from his resistance to and failure to take advan tag e of the services avai lable to him, and his failure to ma ke efforts to provide S.A.W. w it h a suitable

a nd safe living environment , the trial court could infer t hat Father ’ s acts and omissions wo uld continue to endanger S.A.W. in the future. From this e vid ence, the trial court could conclude20

that Ann and her hus band ha d met and would continu e to m eet the em otional and physical needs of the child and that Father pre sented and would conti nue to prese nt an emotional and physical danger to the child . The tr ial court could als o conclude that , since Father failed to tak e advantage of the services ma de a vailable t o him, he would also fail to use any services available
to him should S.A.W. be r eturned to h im . Therefore, the second, third, fifth , and seventh Hol ley factors weigh h eavily in favor of termination. S.A.W. was thriving under Ann ’ s care , a nd An n and her h usband planned to adopt her. The evidence also showed that S.A.W. was developing normally u nder their care. Although Father consistently attended hi s v isitations with S.A.W., he showed an inability to tend to her basic needs and resisted as sis t ance when it was offered. He also resisted taking advantage of the services that would he lp him beco me a better paren t and insisted that he did not nee d them.
Fr om this evi dence, the trial court could conclude that the four th, sixth , and eight Holl ey fa c tors also weighed in favor of termination. Based on this record, a fact

- finder reasonabl y could h ave formed a firm belief or conviction t hat termination of Fath er ’ s parental rights was in S.A.W. ’ s best interest. As a result, we find that factually s uf fic i ent eviden ce supported the trial court ’ s best

- interest finding. W e overrule this issue.21

For t he reasons stated, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss II I Chief Justice Date Submitted : April 11, 2022 Date Decided: April 22 , 202 2