See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.8 (b)(1)(A). 1 NO. 07-09 -016 6-CV

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER23, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF J.N ., A C HI LD

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 46 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF W IL BA RG ERCOU NT Y; NO . 24, 589; HO NO RA BLE D AN M IKE BIR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Samantha Bradford, appeal s a F ina l Order i n Sui t Affecti ng the ParentChi ld Rel ati onshi p in w hic h the tr ial cour t ter minat ed the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p betw een Bradf ord and h er

d au g ht er , J .N

. B y

fou r i s s ue s , Brad ford c on te nd s t ha t th ere i s l eg al ly 1 and factu all y

i nsuffici ent e v ide nce to suppo rt the jud g ment of ter minat ion

. Con cl udi ng that the record c ontai ns factual ly insuffici ent ev ide nce that ter minat ion of Bradford’ s p arental ri g hts i s i n the bes t of the chi ld, w e w il l re v erse the j udg ment and remand th e c ause.2 Back g ro und Bradford i s t he bi olo g ic al mother of J.N . ( the c hil d)

. In A pr il of 2007, the D epar tment of Family and Protect iv e Services ( Depa rtme nt), ap pellee , received a report th at th e child w as extens iv ely

br uis ed. The De par

tment inv est ig ated the repor t and disc ov ered th at t he child ha d a thre e to four inch, red and purple b ruising i n he r v aginal and rectal area a s w ell as approx imat ely

fiv e q uar ter-s iz ed br uis es on her ch est . The c hil d w as tak en to a ho spi tal for ev alu ati on, w hic h c onfir med thatthe chi ld’ s c ondi ti on w as, i n fact, br uis ing

. On the ev eni ng dur ing w hic h the ch il d s ust ain ed th e br uis ing , Bradford i ndi cat ed th at she h ad left the ch ild with h er b oyfrien d, Sha un McGee , w hen she w entto w ork. Before Bradford l eft for w or k, the c hil d di d not hav e anybrui si ng or diaper rash in her

v ag ina l or rectal area s. According to the report received by the Departm ent , McGee called Bradford at w ork to inform her tha t the child w as red. Brad ford assu me d tha t it w as diap er rash so she tol d M cGe e to put o int ment on it

. W hen Bradford retur ned home from wor k, she chec ked on th e c h ild ’s c ondi ti on, b ut, due t o i t bei ng dar k a t t hat t ime, sh e c onti nued t o believe tha t the child simply had a bad case of diape r rash. W hile Brad ford ha d previously tak en th e c hil d to the h ospi tal for b ad dia per ra sh, she did not seek medi cal att enti on on thi s occ asi on becaus e she w as afrai d tha t t he D epar tment w oul d bec ome i nv olv ed i n the cas e. The De p a rt m e n t f il ed s uitto ter minat e the parental r ig hts of Bradford d ue to v iola t io n s of

Te x as Fam ily

Code sect ion 16 1.0 01(1 )(D) , (E), and (O) and beca use ter minat ion w oul d be in the best int erest of t he chi ld. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 161. 001Furt her referenc es to t he Tex as Fami ly C ode w il l be by

referenc e to “s ect ion ___” 2 or “ § ___. ” 3 (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. At the beg inn ing of the resul ti ng tr ial , g eneti c t est ing es tabl is hed 2 that Jeremy Co o k was the bio log ic al father of the c hil d. The tr ial co urt s ig ned an order esta blishing thatCook is th e child’s fath er a nd the De partm ente x pressly indicat ed th at it w as no t seekin g term inatio n of Cook’s paren tal rig ht s . A ft e r a bench trial, the trial court f o u n d , b y c lea r and c onv inc ing ev ide nce, thatBradford h ad ( 1) kn ow ing ly pl aced or know ing ly

al low ed the chil d to re main in cond it ion s o r sur ro undi ng s w hic h endan g ered th e phy si cal or

emoti onal w ell -b ein g of the chi ld; (2) engag ed i n c onduc t or kn ow ing ly

pl aced the c hil d w it h persons w ho eng ag ed i n c onduc t w hic h endan g ered th e phy si cal or em otion al w ell-being of the child; and ( 3) failed to com ply w ith the provis io n s o f a co urt orde r that spe cif ically

estab lished the actions nece ssary for Bradford to obt ain the return of the c hil d. See § 161.001 (1 )( D) , ( E) , ( O)

. In ad dit ion , the tr ial cour t found, by cl ear

and convincing ev iden ce, th at te rmina tion o f B ra d f ord’s pare nta l ri ghts w ould be in the best inte re s t o f

t h e c hild. See § 161 .00 1(2). On the basis of these f indings, the trial court ordered te rmi nati on of the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p betw een Bradford a nd th e c hil d. Bradford a ppeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er ter minat ing her

parental ri g hts co ntendi ng that each of the tr ial co urt’ s fin din g s u nder se cti on 161. 001 is not suppor ted byl eg all y

and factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce.4 Termi nati on of Parental R ig hts Paren ts’ rig hts to “th e com pan ionsh ip, care, cu stod y and man agem ent ” of

their children are const itution al interest s “fa r more precio us tha n any property r ight.” San tosky v . Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 758- 59, 102 S.C t. 1388, 71 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1 982)

. In a ter minat ion cas e, th e S ta te s eeks not merel y to li mit thos e r ig hts , butto end t hem final ly and irrev ocab ly

–to div est th e pa rent an d child of all legal rig hts, priv ileges, dutie s, and powers nor mall y ex is ti ng betw een t hem, ex ceptfor t he c hil d’s r ig ht t o i n h e rit . See § 161.206 ; Holick v . Sm ith, 68 5 S.W .2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985 ). Beca use ter minat ion of parental rig hts is suc h a drast icact, due proces s req uires tha t the petitio ner justif

y termin ation byclear and convincing evidence. See § 16 1.2 06(a ); In re G. M. , 596 S.W .2d 8 46, 8 46- 47 ( Tex . 198 0)

. Cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce is “ the measure or

deg re e of proof that w il l produce in the mind of the tr ier of fact a firm bel ief or conviction as to the t ruth of t he allegation s so ught to be esta blished .” § 101.0 07. Becau se of the s ev er ity

and per manency

of the t er minat ion o f a p a re nt- chi ld re lat ion shi p, t er minat ion proce edin gs shou ld be strictly scrutinized and inv olun tary term inatio n stat ute s are strictly cons tr ued i n fav or

of the p ar ent. H oli ck , 685 S.W .2d a t 20- 21. S e c t i o n 1 6 1

. 0 0 1 s e t s o u ta tw o - p ro n g e d testfo r t h e i n v o l u n t a r

y t e r mi n a t i o n o f a parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p. See § 161.00 1. The tr ial courtm ustf ind , byclear and conv inc ing evidence, thatthe pa rent ha s engaged in on e of the ground s for ter min ation foun d in sectio n 1 6 1.0 01(1 ) and th at te rmina tion o f the pa rent-child relat ionsh ip is in the best intere st o f

t h e c h il d. See § 161 .00 1; Horvatich v . Te x . Dep’t of Protect iv e & Regulato ry5

Ser v s., 78 S .W .3d 5 94, 596 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, no pet .)

. The tr ial co urt mus t find both a s tatut or

y g ro und for ter minat ion and that ter minat ion w oul d be in the b esti nterestof the chi ld before i t may

ter minat e the parent’ s r ig hts

. See Hol ley v. Adams, 544 S.W .2d 3 67, 3 7 0 (T e x. 19 7 6 ); H o rvat ich , 7 8 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 6

. W h ile t h e t ria l co u rtm u stf in d b o th pro n gs to t er minat e, often, ev ide nce of stat utor y g ro unds for te rm in a ti on w il l be rele v ant t o the det ermin ation of

w het her term inatio n is in the be st interestof the child. See In re M.A.N.M, 75 S. W .3d 7 3, 79 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2002, no p et.) ; I n re D .M ., 58 S. W .3d 8 01, 8 14 (Tex .App. –For

t W orth 20 01, n o pet .)

.

Standa rd of Rev iew W hen bot h l eg al and factu al suffici encyc hal len g es are present ed, t he rev iew ing cour t first re v iews t he l eg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce. Gl ov er v . Tex

. Gen. Indem. Co. , 6 1 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 1 (T e x. 1 9 8 1 ). Be c a u s e t e rm in a t io n re qu ir e s t h a te a c h o f t h e two prong s b e es tabl is hed b y cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce, rev iew of the l eg al and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence is necessarily af fecte d by the burd en o f proof required a t trial. In re J.F .C ., 96 S.W .3d 256, 264 (Tex

. 2002)

. As su ch, w e rev iew the leg al suffici ency

of the ev iden ce in a term inatio n proce edin g by consid ering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to th e prevailing party, indulging every rea sona ble inferen ce in tha t party’s favor, to de ter mine w hether

a reason abl e tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv ic ti on that it s fin din g w as tr ue. Id. at 26 6. In a factual su f f iciency rev iew of a ter minat ion proceed ing , w e rev iew al l of th e e vide n ce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine w hether the ev ide n ce i s su ch that the fin der of fact c oul d reason abl y form a firm bel ief or

co nv ic ti on abo ut th e truth of

the pe titione r’s alleg ation s. In re C.H., 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002 ).6 Stat utor y Grounds for Ter minat ion By her se cond, thi rd , and fourth is sues , Bradford c hal len g es the l eg al and factu al suf f iciency of each of the statu tory groun ds for term inatio n foun d by the trial court. Only one findi ng al leg ed unde r sec ti on 161. 001( 1) i s ne ce ss a ry t o s uppor t a jud g ment of ter minat ion

. In re D .M ., 58 S. W .3d a t 813

. In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e w il l cons ide r the e v ide nce that suppo rt s t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g s o f the s tatut o ry ground s for ter minat ion and the undi sput ed ev ide nce. I n re J .F .C ., 96 S. W .3d a t 268

. W e do not cons ide r ev ide nce that the t ri al cour

t c oul d hav e reason abl y di sbel iev ed. Id. T he trial cou rt fo und thatBradford failed to comp ly w ith the provi sions of

a court orde r that spe cif ically

estab lished th e actio ns ne cessary for the paren t to obt ain the return of the c hil d under

se cti on 161. 001( 1) (O ). I n an order entered on Aug ust20, 2007, the t ri al court ord ered Bradford to pay $50 per mo nth to the Departm entfor child supp ort, sub mit to a psychological or psy chiatric evaluation , atte nd and co ope rate in cou nseling session s, successf ully

comp lete p aren ting classes, subm it to a drug a n d alcoho l depe nde ncy ass ess ment, submi t t o random dr ug tes ti ng , c omply w it h eac h req uirement i n the Depa rtme nt’s orig inal or am end ed sa fety plan, an d no tif y the Dep artm entand trial court of her cur re nt resi dence a d d re ss . The D epar tment’ s s afetypl an c lar ified so me of the re q uirements under

the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

and, addi ti onal ly , re q uired Bradford to ob tai n and maint ain empl oy ment or sh ow a means of prov idin g f in a n cial su ppor t for the c hil d and ob ta i n ap prop r i at e ho us i ng and mai nt ai n a sa fe an d s an i ta r y h om e. W hi l e th ere i s s om eBrad ford c on te nd s t ha t th e s ta tu to r y g rou nd for

t er mi na ti on b as ed o n th e failure 3 to com ply w ith a cou rt order requires proof o f a co ntu ma cious failure to co mp ly . How ever, t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d b y B r a d fo rd t o s u p p o rt t h i s p o s i t i o n d o e s n o t s u p p o rt the p osi ti on. Bradford cites In re J.R., 17 1 S.W .3d 558 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 5, no pet. ), in s u p p o rtof her

co ntent ion thatthe sta tutor y g ro und req uires cont umaci ous v iol ati on of a c our t order , butthe opi nio n i n no w ay attempts to estab li sh suc h a sta ndard. In fact , t he cour t ex pr ess ly

st ates thatthe is sue of w hether proof of s ect ion 161. 001( 1) (O ) had bee n pr esent ed w as not b efore it. Se e i d. at570 n.5. F urther , t he l eg is lat ure i ncl uded a statu tory groun d for termin ation base d on a co ntu ma cious ref usal to com ply w ith a cou rt order i n s ectio n 161. 001( 1) (I ). C lea rl y , i f the l eg is lat ure had int ended for the failu re to 7 und ispute d evidence tha t Bradford com plied w ith certain p ortion s o f t he trial cou rt’s order, there i s e v id e n ce i n the r ecord tha t Bradford d id not c omplet e the ordered parenti ng cl ass es, fail ed to noti fy the D epar tment of re si dence addres s chang es, did not make any mo nth ly child supp ort payme nts, a nd te sted positive fo r marijuan a on tw o occa sions. Con si der ing al l of the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s fin din g and i ndul g ing ev er

y reaso nabl e inferenc e in fav or of that f ind ing , w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial cour t c oul d reason abl y

hav e formed a f irm bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at B ra dford fail ed to compl y w it h the prov is ion s o f a cour t order thatsp eci fical ly

es tabl is hed t he ac ti ons nece ssary for Bradford to obt ain the return of the child. T hus, the evidence is le gally suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g of a s tatut or y g ro und for ter minat ion

. Con si derin g t h e ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e are s ti ll present ed w it h uncon trov erted e v ide nce that Bradford fai led to comply w it h the prov is ion s o f the tr ial cour t’ s orde r. W hil e it is true that Bradford c omplet ed abou t hal f of the parenti ng cl ass es she w as ordered to co mplet e, s ubmit ted t o a p sy chol og ic al ev alu a t i o n , a tt e n d e d c ounse li ng unt il termina ted bythe cou n s e lo r, and w as evaluate d an d test ed for drugs, Bradford still failed to comp ly

w ith al l o f

t h e p rov isions of

the trial court’s orde r. Considering this 3compl y

w it h a c our

t order under se cti on 161.001 (1 )( O) to hav e re q uired a cont umaci ous failu re , i t c oul d hav e eas il y ex press ed th at i ntent
. Compare § 1 61.001( 1) (I ) w it h § 161 .00 1(1)(O). 8 undi sput ed ev ide nce, w e c annot say that the tr ial co urt c oul d nothav e reason abl y formed a fir m bel ief

or co nv ic ti on of the sta tutor y g ro und for ter minat ion found i n s ect ion 161 .00 1(1)(O). See In re C.H., 89 S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002 ). Beca use o nly one sta t u t oryg roun d for termin ation und er section 161 .00 1(1) is nece ssary to suppo rt a judgme nt of term inatio n, w e nee d not add ress Bradford’s chal len g es to t he s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the findi ng s under se cti on 161.001 (1 )( D) and (E ). Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.1; In re D .M ., 58 S. W .3d a t 813

. W e overrule appe llant’s seco nd, third, an d fourth issues. BestInte rest of

the Child By her f irst issue, Bradford con ten ds tha t the ev iden ce is legall y a n d factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s c oncl usi on th at ter minat ion is i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. To ter minat e a p arent’ s r ig hts , t he ev ide nce must est abl is h by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that ter minat ion i s i n the bes t i nte re st of the chi ld. Se e H oll ey , 544 S.W .2d at 370 ; Horv atich, 7 8 S.W .3d a t 596 . Th ere is a strong presum ption thatthe be st int er estof a c hil d i s s er

v ed by keepi ng cu sto dy i n the natu ra l parent. In re D .T., 3 4 S. W .3d 625, 641 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 00, p et. deni ed)

. Termi nati on s houl d notbe u sed to merel y real loc ate chi ldren to bette r and more prosperous parents
. In re D. M. , 58 S.W .3d at 81 4.9

In det e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r t e r mi n a t i o n o f a p a r e n t - c h i l d re l a t i o n s h i p w o u l d b e i n the besti nterestof the c hil d, c our ts mayconsi der

a number

of f act ors, inc lud ing : t he des ires of the c hil d, t he presentand future phy si cal and emoti onal needs of the chi ld, the present and future emoti onal and phy si cal danger to the chi ld, the parental abi li ti es of the person seekin g custo dy, program s av ailable to assist tho se perso ns in prom oting the best inte rest of the c hil d, pl ans for th e c hil d bythose indi v idu als or bythe ag ency se eki ng cu sto dy , t he acts or om issions of

the pa rent th at m ay indicat e tha t the ex isting parent-ch ild relationsh ip is n o t app ro pr iat e, an d any ex cus e for the a cts or omi ss ion s o f the parent. H oll ey , 544 S.W .2d a t 371 -7 2. W e will r e vi ew the ev ide nce under

eac h of the Hol ley

factors t o det ermin e the suf

f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort the trial court’s best inte rest deter minat ion

. At t he ti me of tr ial , the c hil d w as tw o and a hal f y ears o ld. As su ch, the chi ld w as notable to e x press her desires. How ever, th e evidence estab lishes tha t Bradford regularly v is it ed th e c hil d, i nteract ed appropr iat ely w it h the chi ld dur ing thes e v is it s, and had bonded w it h the chi ld. There is no e v ide nce that the c hil d has any g re ater phy si cal or

emoti onal needs than any

othe r tw o y ear

ol d c hil d. The De par tment pre se n te d e v ide nce that Bradford has a his tor

y of being i nv olv ed i n abus iv e rela ti onshi ps, how ev er , t he c asew or ker tes ti fied th at t he D epar tment does not b eli ev e tha t Bradford p hy si call y a b used the c hil d. Addi ti onal ly , t he c asew or ker ex pr ess ly

tes ti fied that Bradford w oul d pose no dang er to the chi ld dur ing su per

v is ed v is it ati on. Bradford’ s fai lure to compl y w it h all prov is ion s o f the tr ial cour t’ s o rd er , as dis cus sed abov e, g iv es ri se to a re asona ble inference that Bradford may not h av e the parental abi li tie s t o putthe besti nterestof the c hil d first. I n addi ti on,10

Br ad fo rd ’ s t e s t i n g p o s i t i v e fo r d r u g s o n tw o s e p a ra t e o c c a s i o n s , e v e n t h o u g h b oth occasio ns occu rred at tim es w hen Bradford did n o th a ve po ssession of the child, is s i g ni fi c an t w he n c on s i de r i ng B r ad ford’ s p aren ta l a bi l ities. W hi l e th ere are prog r am s av ail abl e to ass is t Bradford i n promoti ng the besti nterestof the c hil d, B ra dford’ s fai lure to compl y w it h the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er and the D epar

tment’ s s er

v ic e pl an and av ail hersel f of such p rograms rend ers the a v ailability of su ch programs less significan t. A s t o Brad ford’s act s o r omis si ons that aff ectw heth e r the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s p ro per , t here w as undi sput ed ev ide nce that Bradford c onti nued he r re lat ion shi p w it h M cGe e after she w as aware that the Depa rtme nt suspecte d tha t McGee had caused the child physical injuries. W hil e the re i s n o di re ct ev ide nce that Bradford a ll ow ed M cGe e to hav e c ontac t w it h the chi ld after thi s i nci dent, sh e mai ntai ned t he rela ti onshi p w it h M cGe e after the inc ide nt an d iti s reason abl e to infer that she all ow ed McG ee to hav e contac t w it h the chil d duri ng the ti me thatBradford h ad c ust ody of the chi ld. The D epar tment ind ic ated that it s p lan s for the chi ld w er e to ter minat e Bradford’ s p arental r ig hts so that the chi ld coul d be adopted

. The Dep artment als o i ndi cat ed that it w oul d first attemptto pla ce the c hil d w it h her bi olo g ic al father. H ow e ver, ter minat ion of Bradford’ s p arental r ig hts i s n ot j ust ified by the Depa rtme nt’s plan for ado ption of the child so long as the biolo gical fath er retains his parental r ig hts

. Con si d e r ing thi s e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion that ter minat ion w oul d be in the c hil d’s bes t i nterest , w e c o n clude that the e v ide nce of Bradford’ s h is tor

y of abusi v e r e la ti onshi ps, pos it iv e dr ug tes ts, fail ure to compl y w it h the trial court’s order an d avail herself of programs tha t could a ssist h er in p romo ting the be st11

int er estof the chi ld, combi ned w it h the reason abl e i nferenc e tha t s he al low ed M cGe e to hav e c ontac t w it h the ch il d after sh e w as aw are tha t M cGe e w as sus pect ed of hav ing inj ur ed th e c hil d is suffici ent ev ide nce to all ow the fin der of fact to hav e formed a fir m bel ief or conviction tha t term ina t io n o f B ra dford’s pare nta l ri ghts w ould be in the child’s best int er est
. See I n re J .F .C ., 96 S. W .3d a t 266

. Ho we ve r, wh e n t h e t o t a l i t yo f t h e e vid e n c e is re vie we d in a n e u t ra l l ig h t , we conclu de th at th e evidence is insuf f icient to estab lish thattermin ation of the pa rent-child relation ship w ould be in the b est intere st of t he child. Th e Depa rtme nt’s plan s for the ch ild ar e to attemptto pla ce the chi ld w it h her bi olo g ic al father and, if thos e att empts fail, to attemptto pla ce the chi ld w it h an adopti v e famil y . Beca use the D epar tment canno t ado pt the c hil d so long as the bio log ic al father re tai ns his parental r ig hts , t er minat ion of Bradford’ s p ar ental r ig hts w il l not neces sar il y adv ance the g oal of prompt and per manent pla cementof

the chi ld in a safe env ironment. See § 263.307( a)

. Fur ther , t er minat ion of Bradford’ s p ar ental r ig hts w ould r e m ov e Bradford’ s d uty to suppo rtthe chi ld. Se e § 161.206 ; H oli ck , 685 S.W .2d a t 20. The c hil d’s bio log ic al father tes ti fied that he does not bel iev e tha t i t w oul d be i n t h e c hil d’s bes t i nterestfor B ra dford’ s r ig hts to be te rmi nated. Bradford and the chi ld hav e dev elo ped a bond. The D epar tment’ s c asew or ker

co ncede d tha t Bradford w ould pose no thre at to the child d uring supervi sed visi ts. T he ch ild’s bio log ic al father tes ti fied th a t h e wo u ld be w il li ng to compl y w it h any

co urt orders t hat all ow ed Bradford t o hav e s uper v is ed v is it ati on w it h the ch il d. W e must remai n mindful that there i s a st ro ng presumpt ion thatthe besti nterestof a c hil d i s s er

v ed by ke epi ng cus tody in the natural parent. In re D. T., 34 S.W .3d at 64 1.Our co ncl usi on th at t he De p a rt m e n t has fail ed to presentfactual ly su ff ic ien t 4 ev ide nce re g ardin g the besti nterestof the c hil d i s n ot ba sed on th e D epar tment’ s i nabi li ty to i denti fy it s d efini ti v e pl ans for th e c hil d. Rat her , our co ncl usi on i s b ased, i n l arg e par t, on th e D e p a rt m e n t ’s reliance on ben ef its thatthe child wi ll only obta in if

the child is per manentl y

pl a ce d i n a s tabl e env ironment. Si nce the D epar tment w il l firs t at tempt to pla ce the c hil d w it h her bi olo g ic al father, ter minat ion of Bradford’ s p arental r ig hts w il l not si g nific antl y

adv ance the D epar

tment’ s p lan s a nd the maint enanc e of Brad ford’ s p arental rig hts w ill notsig nif icantly i mp ede the Dep artm ent ’s plans. 12 W hile the Departm entn eed n ot prove def initiv e plan s for the ch ild’s placem ent , see In re C. H. , 89 S.W .3d a t 28, w e can see no c ompell ing benefitthatw oul d be g ain ed by se v er ing the b ond t hat e x is ts betw een Bradford a nd th e c hil d at thi s time, especi all y i n l ig ht of the Dep artment’ s c ur re nt pl ans to attempt to pl ace the c hil d w it h her bi olo g ic al father. The ev ide nce e st a b li shed that the c hil d w as doi ng w ell i n the temporar y manag ing cons er v atorshi p of the Dep artment w it h Bradford v is it ing the chi ld under su per v is ion

. As the e v ide nce est abl is hes that Bradford poses no threat to th e c hil d dur ing su per v is ed v is it s a n d sin ce th e De p a rt m e n t’ s go a l o f pro vidi n g th e ch ild st a b ili ty an d pe rm a n e n ce th ro u gh ado ption cann ot curren tly be acco mp lished, w e can notsee ho w the f inde r of

f a c t could form a f irm belief

or convi ction th at th e drastic actof termin ation w o u ld b e in the be st int er estof the c hil d. C onseq uentl y , w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent 4 to sup port the trial court’s det ermin ation thattermin ation of Bradford’s pare nta l ri ghts is i n the b esti nterestof the c hil d. W e s ust ain Bradford’ s first is sue.13 Con cl usi on Beca use w e hol d tha t th e record c ontai ns factual ly i nsuffici ent e v ide nce that ter minat ion of Bradford’ s p arental r ig hts i s i n the bes t int erest of t he chi ld, w e rev erse the trial court’s order an d rem and the cau se for a new tr ial on all issues.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice