Opinion filed March 27, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00299-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.H., C.B.B., AND T.L.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C45021

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the parents

of L.J.H., C.B.B., and T.L.H. The mother timely filed an appeal.1 In a single issue

on appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination.

We affirm.

I. Termination Standards

The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2013). To 

 1

Neither the father of L.J.H. nor the unknown fathers of C.B.B. and T.L.H. filed an appeal. 
2

determine if the evidence is legally sufficient in a parental termination case, we 

review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determine 

whether a rational trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its 

finding was true. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). To determine if 

the evidence is factually sufficient, we give due deference to the finding and 

determine whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm 

belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations against the parent. In re C.H., 

89 S.W.3d 17, 25–26 (Tex. 2002). To terminate parental rights, it must be shown 

by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has committed one of the acts 

listed in Section 161.001(1)(A)–(T) and that termination is in the best interest of 

the child. FAM. § 161.001. 

II. Findings and Evidence

In this case, the trial court found that the mother had committed one of the 

acts listed in Section 161.001(1)—that found in subsection (D). Specifically, the 

trial court found that the mother had placed or allowed the children to remain in 

conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being. 

The trial court also found, pursuant to Section 161.001(2), that termination of the 

mother’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. In her brief, 

the mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the best 

interest finding. 

The record shows that, in October 2012, the Texas Department of Family 

and Protective Services received an intake regarding the neglect of the children due 

to the unsanitary and hazardous conditions of the home where they resided with 

their mother and her boyfriend. The intake also involved possible substance abuse. 

Jeremy Henard, an investigator for the Department, visited the home after speaking 

to two of the children at school. Henard observed numerous hazards outside the 

mother’s home, including the following: broken bottles, stripped wires, dead 
3

animals’ carcasses, roaches on the front porch, and rotting bowls of food. Inside 

the home, Henard observed, “Every surface of the home was covered with filth, a 

severe infestation of insects, roaches, animal feces on every floor in every room.” 

According to Henard, the smell of animal feces and animal urine was 

overpowering. The children’s rooms were in the same deplorable condition as the 

rest of the house. There was trash throughout the house. In the bathroom, Henard 

observed used toilet paper, diapers, and other products piled on the floor. On that 

date, the mother was given a drug test, which came back positive; she admitted that 

she used methamphetamine and had a $40-per-week habit. The children were 

removed from the home at that time.

The mother had a history with the Department, and the children had been

removed from her care in the past. The children had been in and out of foster care 

since 2009. The Department’s conservatorship caseworker testified that the mother 

completed her services while this case was pending but that this was the third time 

that she had completed services. The mother had been offered services at the time 

of the previous removals, and within months of the children being returned to the 

mother, the condition of the home had deteriorated. According to the caseworker, 

the condition of the house at the time of the most recent removal “was the worst 

that it’s ever been.”

At the time of the final hearing in this case, the children were placed in an 

adoptive placement. The caseworker believed that the children needed 

permanency and deserved a home that was safe, stable, and free of filth. The 

mother’s home was suitable on the date of the final hearing. However, despite the 

Department’s past efforts, the mother had demonstrated an inability to maintain the 

home for a prolonged period of time.
4

III. Analysis and Conclusion

We hold that there was clear and convincing evidence from which the trial 

court could reasonably have formed a firm belief that the mother had placed or 

allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their 

physical or emotional well-being. FAM. § 161.001(1)(D). Under subsection (D), 

we examine evidence related to the environment of the children to determine if the 

environment was the source of endangerment to the children’s physical or 

emotional well-being. In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2000, pet. denied). The Department produced clear and convincing evidence that 

the condition of the mother’s home was deplorable and hazardous to the children. 

Pictures of the home were admitted into evidence. Based on the record in this 

case, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial 

court’s finding under Section 161.001(1)(D). The mother’s sole issue on appeal is 

overruled. 

IV. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. 

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE

March 27, 2014

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.