## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of T exas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00396

- CV

___ ________________________

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233

- 679089

- 2 0

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Me morandum Opinion by Jus tice Kerr 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### R.H., F.V., M.V., AND 

### P.H., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
R.H. H. (Mother ) and N.V.C . (Father) appeal from the trial court ’ s order
terminati ng their paren tal rights to four of their childre n

— R.H. (Ross), F.V. (Finn),
M.V . (Macy), and P.H. (Penny)

— and appointing the Department of F a mil y and
Protective Services as the children ’ s permanent ma na ging con servator. 1 In this ultra

acce l erated appeal , 2 Mother and Father raise nine issues. We will affirm the judgment
as modified

. I. Background
Mother and Father have s even c hildren: C.V. ( C o ra) M. V. (Myra) , A.V. (Anne) , Ross, Finn, Macy, and Penny , and they had been involved with the D epartment for a decade by the time of the 2020 trial in this case

. Before the events giving rise to this

case, the Depar tment had investigated Mother and Father numerous times for

n egl ectful super vision, physical negl ect, physical ab use , s exual abus e, and medical negl ect
. The Department had also investigated allegations that M yra and Anne were

sex

- trafficking vic tim s .

1 W e refer to the childre n using al ia s es and to other family m embers by their rela tionship to the children

. Se e Te x . Fam. Code An n. § 109 .00 2 (d) ; T ex. R . App. P. 9.8(b)( 2 )

.
2 S ee Tex . R. J ud. Ad mi n. 6.2( a) , repr inted i n T ex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. , tit

. 2, su btit. F app. (r equirin g appell ate court t o di s pose o f appeal from j udgment t erminat ing parental rights, so far as r easo nably possible, wi thin 180 days a ft e r notice o f appeal i s fil ed )

.3 I n June 2019 , the Dep artment removed all but Cora , who was 17 years ol d at th e time. T he investigation lea ding to t h e chil dr en ’ s removal started s ix m onths e arlier
when the Department received report s that then

- 14

- ye ar

- old Anne was skipping
school and was in volved with a known sex trafficker ; that s o me of the c hi l dren h ad

“ an issue with lic e ” ; and that the home was uns a nitary

. A. Inve stigation and r emoval According to Adrianne B ro wn , a Department i nvestigator , th e D epartm ent commenced the in vestigation over concerns about the chi ldren ’ s unsafe home

c ondi tions and about Anne ’ s be ing a sex

- tra fficking victim

. Durin g Brown ’ s initial
visit to the family ’ s home , she o bserved th at the floor s had mud and dirt on them and
th at ther e wa s a “ very strong o dor of

. . . h uman u rine ” throughout the home. T he
kitch e n counter s w ere covered i n food and dishes , and t h ere were “ tons of bugs and
fl ie s . ” B rown c hecked for bed bu gs and found n one , b ut she o bserved that t he

m at t r es ses and sheets were very dirty.
Brown was alarmed about the ho me ’ s condition beca use “ [c] hild r en shoul d n ’ t be living in an env ironment like [that]

. . . e s pecially with [Penny ’ s ] having healt h

con ditions. I was worried that they would get si ck f rom the home conditions. ” But
when Brown discussed these apprehensi ons with Mother, Mother “ didn ’ t seem v er y concerned ” and could not u nderstand wh y Brown was concerned.
Brown ob serv ed that then

- five

- year

- old Penny w as “ very ti n y ” a nd underweight. Her clothes were tattered and dirty, and her fingernails w ere “ very4 black

. ” She was unbath ed , and her hair was v e ry messy and l ooked like i t had not been combed in a long time. Brown descr ibed Penn y as not ha v in g any mu scle and
her l imbs as “ just kind of bone and skin. ” When B rown voi ced t hese concerns , Mother res ponded that Pen n y ’ s size was a result of her medical i ssues. Brown testified

t hat Penny ’ s doct ors w ere co n cerned th a t M o ther was not “ follow i ng through ” with Penny ’ s medical care and that Mother was having a hard time fo llo wing medical
recommendati ons.
Br own was also troubled beca use Penny needs round

- the

- cl o ck supervision and

care bec ause she cannot ea t an d drink like a no rma l child. Brown admitted that she
did n ot know Penn y ’ s medical diagnosis b u t t esti fied that the child is no n mobile,

nonver bal, and cannot care f or he rself. W hen B rown visited the home, Pe n ny was alo ne in a room with the do or close d and was “ ki n d of hal f h a n ging off ” a mat tress on the floor

. Brown observed that Ross, Fi n n, and Macy were very dirty , “ just k ind of ran
wherever they wanted to , ” and “ weren ’ t be ing watched or supervised. ” Durin g B rown ’ s visit, B ro wn talked to th e n

- ten

- year

- old Ross , who had a “ very strong, foul
b ody odor. ” Ross appeared “ in tell ectually dela y ed ” and was thus unabl e to do a

com plete in terview with Brown and could not und er stand many of her quest io ns. Li ke Penny, R o ss wore clothe s that were tattered and dirty, and his finger nails were very dirty. B rown observ ed that then

- eight

- year

- o ld tw ins Finn ’ s and Macy ’ s conditions
were the same

— fou l b ody odor ; dirty , tattered clothes ; and dirt y fi ng er nails. Brown5 described t he bod y o dor as “ if they hadn ’ t bathed in a very lon g time ” and s tated that

“ [i]t was to t he point where I was gett ing sick interv iewing them [,] and I was going to
have to l eave at one point because I couldn ’ t s tay in th er e any longe r w i th the od or. ”
Whe n B r o wn addressed t he children ’ s condition s wi th Mother, Mother respon ded
that she c ould not make the childre n bathe if they did not want to.
Mother was also unable to supervise the children. During Bro wn ’ s vis it, B rown

saw Ross and Fin n run in the street t ow a rd the nearby I nterstate 35 service road, and
B rown had to tell Mother to stop them. At one point, one of the children “ grabbed an

axe an d start ed playing with it while

. . . running i n and out of the street. ” M o t h er saw th is and did nothing until Brown p r ompted her to inter v ene. Brown confirmed that the family had a len gthy his tory wit h the Departmen t that involved the home ’ s condition ; Cora ’ s b eing sexually abused and reporti ng it to
Mothe r , who did nothing; Myra ’ s and Anne ’ s not attendi ng school ; and M y ra ’ s and
Ann e ’ s being sex

- traffickin g victims

. When Bro wn spok e to Mother about t he possibility that Anne was a sex

- tr afficking victim , Mother “ didn ’ t really beli eve t h at that ’ s wha t w as happening ” and w ould say that An ne was “ just a runaway . ” Brown spo k e to Fath er by telephone about t he physical

- negl ect and s ex

trafficking allegations. Father re sponded that h e was “ never really home , ” that
ch i ldcar e was Mother ’ s re spon sibili ty , and t hat he had no idea what was going on at home. When B rown spoke to Anne a b out Father, Anne “ described on n umerous

o ccasions that w hen she wou ld run away, she was afraid to come home because she6 knew her f a th er w o u ld hit her, slap her, and punch h er, and that he had done that any time she had come home from running away . ” Ann e a l so t old Brown that she was
afraid to come back h ome because Father would curs e at her and call her names

. B ased o n t he c o n cerns that arose during her inves tig atio n, Br o wn referred the

c ase to F amily

- Based Safe ty Services (FB SS)

. Mother and Fath er agreed t o work FBSS

se rvices e ven tho ugh the parents thought they were unnecessary . The FBSS cas e was open fo r a b ou t six months when the Department rec eiv ed a report in late May 2019 c oncerning the parents ’ physical and medical negl ect of
P enny . The Depar tment a n d the F BSS c asework er recommend ed that Penny be
evaluated at Cook Children ’ s Medical Center due to h er weight loss

. Justin Green ,

an o th er Department inve stigator , met Penny at the hospital and spo ke with hospital

st aff , w ho w ere worried that the now

- six

- y e ar

- old ch ild was failing to thrive and was being physically negl ected

. Whe n Penny arrived at the hos pital, her h ai r was severe l y

matte d ; she h ad a “ sev er e lice infestation ” ; and she ha d fun gus on two of her to es . By
the time G reen arrived , h ospital staff “ had already tried to treat the li c e infestat ion

. . . and had b rushed a nd cut some of her h air to tr y to treat the lice. ”
Gr een observed that Penny was severely u nderweight an d malno urishe d

. As part of his investigation, Green spoke with both pare nts abo u t Penny ’ s failure to thrive and the lice in festatio n . Even thou gh Penny we ighed a mere
2 5 pounds, her par e n ts seem ed obli vious th a t her weight was an issue or that she w as7 f

ailing to th rive

. A s for the lice, Mot her told Green that she was pl anning to take Penny to get a haircu t to treat the lice.
Green was surprise d t hat Mother a nd Father were not c oncerned about Penny ’ s weight because of the fam ily ’ s Department

- related hi story , which included Penny ’ s being d i a gno sed with failure to thrive at three months o ld

. Sin ce then , t he
D epartment had opened cases because it wa s concerned that Penny was m aln ourished

an d t hat all the ch ildren wer e being ph ysically neglec ted.
Based on Green ’ s in vesti gation regarding Penny , i t appeared to Green that
M other and F ather we re not ma king pro gress regarding any of the childre n during the
FBSS case , even though the ca s e had been going on fo r si x months. Aft er Green ’ s inve stigation , “ [t]he dec ision for remova l was put f orth through FBSS , ” which “ ha d [a] cons i stent history wit h t he family , . . . had consis tent issues and conce rns with the ph ysical negl ect of t h e children, lac k of a dequ ate super vision of the ch ildren , t he

con cerns for the

-- sex trafficking of [Myra] and [Anne]. ” In June 2019, the De partment sue d for conservatorshi p of Myra, Anne, Ross,
Finn , Macy, and Penny and to terminate Mother ’ s an d F ather ’ s p arenta l rig h t s to them

. The c hildren were re moved from the parents, and t he trial court signed an order appointing the D epartment as th e children ’ s t emporary manag ing con s er vator
.8 B. The t rial
The case was t ried to the bench over tw o days in O ctober and N o v ember
2020. 3 At the start of trial, the Department a nnounc ed that it intended to “ nonsuit as to [Myra and Anne] ” a nd that it wou ld el icit testimony about why the Departm en t bel ieved that a non suit was in the girls ’ best inte rest.
B row n and Green t e stified reg ardin g the Depa rtment ’ s investigation leading t o the chi ldren ’ s removal

. The trial court al so heard tes timony from Marib el Leal (a Department local perm anency spe cial is t who had worked on the ca se since October
201 9 ) ; Ju lie O ’ Brien ( the case ’ s per m anency s upervisor ) ; Pen ny ’ s foster mother ; and
Father. Moth er did not testi fy

. i. Myra and Anne Myra turned 17 during the trial, and Anne turned 16 just after the trial. The
D e partme nt be l iev ed that both girls we re sex

- traffick ing vic tims

. At one point, b oth gir ls had b een associating with a rumored trafficker who had admitted to sleeping in a
bed with th e two girls. The Departm ent suspected that h e w as “ pr ostit uting the girl s . ”
Whe n the De p ar tment confronted Mother with its su sp icions, she was unconcer ned
about th e g ir

ls ’ association with the man, as well as their association with an other

3 I n A p r il 202 0, t he De pa rtment timely mo ved the trial court to r etain j urisd iction for an add itional six month s so t hat Mot her and Father could com plete t he s ervice

- plan requirements necessary for the c hil dren ’ s r etu r n. See Tex. Fam. C ode An n. § § 263.401, .40 3( a

- 1)

. T he trial court gra nted the motion on May 1 8 , 2020 , and extended the cas e ’ s dism issal date to N ovember 13, 20 20. T h e t rial commenced on Oc tober 2, 2020.9 sus pected sex traffi c ker

. F a t h er claim ed tha t he was not aware of the sex

- traffick ing

co n c erns until the first day of trial.
B o th girl s had a history of ru nning aw a y from home

. M other and Father had
no control over them and admit ted to Leal that the girls w o u ld just come a nd go

. Father had kick ed them out of the house several times over the pa st few years

. D uring
the 17 mo nth s the girls were in the Depa r tment ’ s care , the y ran aw ay several times

an d were la st in the D epart men t ’ s c a re in April 2 020. At the t ime o f tr ial, neither th e Departme nt nor Father knew where th e girls were. Leal te stifie d that M yra and Anne
di d not trust the Department and that they r efused to meet with her bec ause the y f

eared she would put them b ack i nto foster care. Traffick911

— an ad vocacy group that work s with s ex

- trafficking vic tim s and provides them wit h medical serv ic es , counselin g , help , and assistance

—had been working w ith t he girls for year s and believed that they were human

- t raff i cking v i ct ims

. The girls had a close relationship with the o rganization, but since th eir removal by the Department, the girls had ref us ed to meet wit h anyone from Traffick911 because they
fear ed that th e organ ization would turn the m over t o the D epa rtment , which would put them back i nto foster care. Traffic k911 believe d that the Department ’ s involv ement was “ keeping [ the girls] on the run ” and was preventin g Tra ffic k911 fro m being able t o work w ith the gi r ls and provid e them with servi ces. Traff ic k 911 urged th e Department to dismis s the termination case regarding Myra and
Anne because Traffick 911 believe d that th e girls would be willing to e ngage with th e10 organizati on again and g et the s ervices and help they ne ed ed

. Both Leal a nd O ’ Brien
thus believed t hat it would be in the g irls ’ best interest for the Department to dismiss
them from the case.
Based on Mother ’ s and Fat her ’ s a ttit ude s t owar d M yra ’ s and Anne ’ s behavior , Leal wa s conc e rned that M acy

— who herself wa s show ing signs of h aving been

sex ual ly abuse d

— might engag e i n the same be havior a s her old er sisters. Leal further opined that she was conce rned that the par ent s ’ lack of conc e rn or aw ar eness that Myra and An ne we re trafficking victims pu t all the child ren a t risk of being traf ficked.
ii. Ross, Fin n, and Macy
A t the time of tri al, Ross was 12 y ear s old , and Finn and Macy were 10 years
old.
L eal te stifi ed that R os s was doing well. He wa s in the seventh grade and was attending c lass in person. Leal descri bed Ro ss

— who is in the spec ial

- education
program at school

— as “ verba l ” bu t “ not able to ha ve direct convers a tion with you

. ”
Ross h as he a ri ng iss ues and thus has a coc hlear im plant

. R oss i s now pott y trained but still has bedwetting prob le ms . He takes sl eep medi cati on and re c eives speech,

occ upation al , physical , and beh avioral therap y . Just be fore t ria l, Ross had moved to a new f oster home and was not placed
with a ny of his sib li ng s . Ro ss h ad earlier been placed with Macy, but h e had started
b ehaving in app r opriately wit h her and had d eveloped beha vioral prob lem s . Ross ’ s behavior at home

— which Le al desc r ibed a s “ co n stantly in everyone ’ s fa ce and11 want [ing ] all the at tention ”

— pr evented Mac y fro m g ett ing th e attention that she
need e d. But a fter Ross moved to a new foster home, Macy was able to get individual attention, and “ she ’ s loving that. ”
A lth ough M acy was “ doing really we ll ” in her fost er home, she s truggles wit h
her hygi ene r o ut ine

. H er fo ster mothe r makes su re that Macy stays clean

. M acy is medicated for depression and receiv es “ regular ” and occu pational therapy. Mac y al so showed signs of ha ving been sexua lly abused before she came i nto care . Macy ’ s fos t er mother w ants to adop t her. Macy ’ s twin b rother Finn was not in an adoption

- motivated home but was in a
home that deals with special

- needs chil dren

. He is in sp ecial

- ed u cation c lasses ,

rece ives behavioral co uns eling , and receives spee c h, physic al , and occupation a l
ther apy
. Finn had be en on three mental

- health medi ca tions but was able to get off of
them while he was i n the foste r ho me. But he wa s still taking medication for bedwetting. Ross and Finn had originall y been p laced together, but because of problem s with that foster home, the broth ers had to be separa ted

. The Department ’ s plan is to

m ove Ro ss an d Finn into an a d op tion

- m otivated home t ogether.
iii. Penny Penny ’ s foster m other (F oster Mother)

— w

ho be fore becoming a stay

- at

- home

mom had wor k ed a s a pediatric o ccup ational th erapist

— firs t me t Pe nny while Penny

was in the hos pital i n J u ne 20 19

. B o th Fos ter Mothe r and Leal confirmed Green ’ s12 accoun t of Penny ’ s condition at the hospital : he r lic e

- i nfested hair that was so sever ely
matted that hos pital staf f h a d to cut it to treat the infestat ion ; he r sallow, yellowish
ski n; and her extre m e malnourishment. At 25 pounds, Penny was the size of a t wo

year

- old

. At the hospital, Penny, who is d evelopmentally delaye d and non verbal, did

not make much eye contact or “ really show any s ort of intera ction with her surroundings. ”
Pen ny has been di agno sed with g lobal dev elopmental delay, failure to thrive, toenail fungus, enc ephalopathy, severe malnutrition , s wa llowing dy sph agia , and epilepsy

. Penny suffers from epile p ti c sei z ures, and her swall o wi ng dy sph ag ia inhibits
her abi lity to swallow foo d

. If Penny “ attempts to tak e anyth ing by mouth t hat is not of an approved th ickness or consistency , she ca n aspirate, which would cause the

su bstance to go into he r lung [s] a nd cause p ne umoni a . ” As a resu lt o f this co ndition,
Penn y is fed through a gastr ic tube

— or G

- but t on

— whic h doctors su rgically placed during her hos pitalization

. Operating , cle aning , and chan ging the G

- button require s special t raini ng th at Foster Mo ther r ec eived at the ho spital befo re bringing Penny
home

. Penny ’ s medic al conditions require round

- the

- clock super vision

. She is

non ambu latory and has to use a whe elchair as well as other m edical equ ipment such

a s leg bra ce s, a s tander , a h ospital bed, a special car se at , and incontinen ce and feeding suppli es . Penny ’ s medical te am includes a primary

- care phy sicia n, an au diologist, an
eye sp ecialist, a neurologist , a gen eticist, and an en docrino logist

.13 At the t im e o f trial, Penny was seven years old and had lived with Foster
Mother since being relea sed from t he hospita l nearly 16 months before

. During that

t ime , Penny ’ s w eight had doubled and her body

- m ass index was appro pri ate for he r
age . Penny had also gaine d strength, was “ able to sit up from a supine position, ” and
could roll “ from pro ne to supine. ” She h ad started showin g some “ precursor skil ls t o

cr awling , ” had started making eye conta ct , and had begu n la ug h ing when things were funny and c rying when she was in pain, which were emotional reaction s that Foster
Mother “ did not s ee at the very beginning w hen she came into [Fo ster M other ’ s]

care. ”
Leal testi f ie d that Penny is currently heal thy , he r clot hes a re alwa ys cle an, and
her ha ir is a lway s brushed and ador ned wit h a bow. Foster M o ther rep orted that
P enny wa s as happy and health y as she could be. Fo ster Mo t her has a strong bond
with P en ny , l oves her , and wants to continue to be her p lacemen t. Penny is the only foster child in Foster Mother ’ s care. Penny cannot be placed
with h er sib lings be cause she re quire s s uch a high de gree of special ized care , which
F oster Mother can provide

. The chil d re n ’ s foster fam i l ies are able a nd willing to allow
the c hildren to see each other.
iv. M other and Father
Mother an d Father l ove their childre n. The children appear to love Father, and
Father and the children appe ar to be bonded

.14 Moth er is a stay

- at

- home mom and the children ’ s primary caretake r . Fat h e r works “ all the time ” and i s at h ome only in the a fternoons. Fa ther has had the same job for 22 years and makes $15 an hour. Father owns t he fa m il y ’ s ho me an d is willing
to b uy a larger home if necessary.
A cco r ding t o Mother ’ s p s ychological evaluation , which was ad mitted into
evide nce at trial , M o ther ha s “ very limited cog nitive skil ls and is not likely to
appro priately make decision s in t he be st in terest of herself and her ch ildren , ” and “ [i] t is likely tha t [she] will need su per vision and support with her children and should no t be in a de cision

- making an d p ri mary caretaking capa city. ” Mother ’ s “ limit ed abilit ies
could be addres se d w ith some services, but it is un likely that her abilit ies will i mprov e great ly. ” The ps ycholo gist who examine d Mother d i agno sed her a s “ border line intellectual functioning. ” Among other things, t he p sychologist recommended that
Mother “ part ici pate i n community

- based services that give her a healthy out let t o talk
about her con cerns a nd con nect with others ” ; “ partic ipate in par enting skills
curricul um and if possible have a parenting me ntor to assist her in understanding how to parent effecti vel y ” ; a nd “ hav e sup ervised c ontact with her children, pr ovi ded that
the contact is not coun ter

- indicated by the child ’ s tr eatment pla n. ”
Le al believed that Mother was in ca pable of caring for the chil dre n no t becau se of her intellectual abilit ies but bec ause she lac ked the d esire and c apability to do s o .15 Fath er ’ s p sychological e valuati on , which was also a dmit ted into evidence, states that [Father] appears to be deal ing with the issues of the C PS case , and is having feeling s of mistrust and soci al alien ation, but he does n o t have the skills to imp rov e the social rel ationships in his life and may be dealing with t he reali ty that his wife is not able to adequately help hi m resolve the issues going o n in the family. [Father] w ould likely need subst ant ial s upport from others in order to have a full

- t im e c aregiving
r ole f or his children

. He has long bee n focused on t he “ prov ider role ” and has not been active in the daily pa renting of the children, lea ving those matters to his wif e. He would likely con tin ue to be sup portive in
an y possible capacity for his c hildren, bu t not well

- suited fo r a daily caregiv ing role. The p sychologist also diagno sed Father as “ borderline intellectual functioning

. ” According to Le al, Father is not willing to ma ke an y chang es to his parenting
role , and he was unwil li ng to rea ch out to family or ne ighbors for help. Father

test ified that he and Mother had done ev e rything the Depar tment had asked them to
do and th at he thinks they a re mu ch more capable of ta king care of the children than

t hey were before the ch i ldren ’ s re moval. H e claimed that he and Mother w ere willin g

to do w hatever t hey n eed ed to do to take care of the children , including getting the m

to medic al and ther apy appointments and m aki ng su re that they are fed

. He disagreed
with the Depa r tment that he and Mo ther cannot take care of the chi ldren

.

v . The f a

mil y ’ s h istory with the D epartment A s no ted, the fam ily has a lengthy h istory with the Department , wh ich s in ce 201 0 ha d handled mo re than 15 “ i ntakes ” in volving the family

. Acco rding to O ’ B r ien,16 the case ’ s permanency supervisor, th e Depart ment ha d opened more than ten cases involv ing M yra and Anne

. T he first F BSS case in v olving the family w as open ed in 20 11 and involve d

con ce r ns ab out insufficient weight g ain and care of F inn and Macy , who were five
months old at th e time

. The next FBSS cas e was opened in December 2016 ba sed on a referral r ega rding a llegations of physic al and med ical negl ect of Macy

. The case
remai ned open for nine months until the Departm en t stopped working with the
fa mily becaus e the fam ily h ad “ reached a plate a u , ” and the Department did not feel that it could pro vid e any more services or help f or the family

. At that time, t he
D epartment f elt tha t the children were still at r isk an d that the family ’ s issues wer e unresolved

. Th e issu e s in that case were the same that the D ep artment was working

on with the parents i n this cas e

— issues the parents stil l h ad no t a ddressed , even though by the time of trial, t his case had been pend ing for about 17 mon ths

. Ac c ording to O ’ Brien, w hen the Departmen t w as in volved with the family in
the past, the chi ldren wou ld g ain w eight and the parent s would impro ve the

“ sanitation a nd appropriateness of the home , ” but when the D e partment “ was out of
the case ” the Dep ar tmen t would receive new refer rals express ing t he same concerns about the family. Ba sed on th e D e par t ment ’ s involve ment and h istory with t he famil y, O ’ Brien b elieved that the c hildren were at su bst antial ri sk if M oth er ’ s and Father ’ s ri ghts we re not terminated beca use the children ’ s medical and d evelopmental needs
would not be met, and th e c hildre n w ould not continue to th rive

.17 v i. The p are nts ’ s er vice p

la n

s and v is

its with the c hildren
W hen Leal t ook over the ca se in O ctober 2019, she though t that the mos t import ant service s for M other and Father to complete were improv ing their parentin g ski lls and engaging with and parenting the chi ldren during vis its. The parents ’ serv ice plan s inc luded atte nding visits with t he c hildren; und ergoing drug t esting; comp leting
counsel ing; maint aining con tact with Leal; atte nd ing the children ’ s me d ic al
app ointments; h av ing stable hous in g; hav in g st able income; and participat ing in a special parenting cl ass. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the parents wer e required to “ co mply with
recommendatio ns from

. . . medical professionals, inc luding any support clas s es or education cla sses to help manage the ir ch ildren ’ [s] nee ds ” and to “ demonstrate they can provide for their child ren ’ s medical , emotio nal , ther apeutic, a nd p hysical needs during visit ations

. ” T he trial court had ordered that th e paren ts co uld have unsupervised visitation i n t heir home if they could “ demonstrate they can meet a ll
medical and physical ne eds of [the children] witho ut a ssist ance from

. . . medical or

ot her pro fessional staff dur ing at least four consecutive s upervised vis its ” ; “ sho w t heir
ab ility to br ush [Pe nny] ’ s teeth, brush h er hair, change her diaper, use her whe elchair,
do G

- b u tton feedings , and work on the occup atio na l thera py and phy sical therap y
goa ls for [Finn] and [Ros s] ” ; and “ d emonstrate they have a safe and s table locat ion for
th e uns u pervised vi s its

. ”18 Alt hou gh th e parents satisfied most of th e p lan ’ s requireme nts 4

— they te sted negative for d rugs; atten ded vis its an d medical appoin tments ; maintain ed contact with
Leal ; maintained s afe , stable, a nd appropriate housing ; co m pleted counseling ; and
Fath er maintain ed his j ob

— t hey failed to demonstrate that they could pa rent the
chi ldren an d car e for their needs

. 5 During v i sits with the children , th e parents

st ruggled to interact with and to supervise them ; the child ren we re “ all over the place
sometimes ” a nd w o uld leave the visitation room. Leal w ould have to prompt the
parents to retriev e them, and the parents ’ enga gement and interactions wit h the
children took “ a l ot of p rompting ” by Lea l

. Duri ng these supervised visits, the pa rents were unable to demons trat e that they could care for Penny ’ s needs (b rush ing her hai r and teeth, chang ing her diap er, a nd feeding her through the G

- button ) and thus never progressed to unsupervi sed visitation

. 6 And even though Leal ha d e xpl ained Penny ’ s

4 The Depa rtment admitted that f or reasons beyond the pa re nt s ’ co ntrol, the parents could not comp le te the parenting and trafficking

- awareness classes.

5 Before the COVID

- 19 pandemic, Mother and Fat her attended all the children ’ s medica l appoint ments
. T he pandemic eventual ly prevente d th e pa ren ts f

ro m atte nd i ng thos e app ointmen ts, but Lea l updated the par e n ts after appoi ntments and gave the m notes
. T he pa ndemic also caused the sus pension of i n

- person visits with t he chi ldren for a time, but the parents attend e d virtual visit s until i n

- pers on v

isits re su med.

6 T he pare nts r e c eived G

- button t raining at Co o k C hil dren ’ s , b ut L eal said that the training was un successful. Fos ter Mother was present d uring so me of the parents ’ vis its with Penny and t ried to te ac h them h ow to us e an d ca r e for Penny ’ s G

- b utton
. Fo ster Mot her o bs erved t hat Mother and F athe r di d not see m to re tain what she ha d taught them and “ kind o f pa ssed off the responsib ility onto [Co ra , their el dest child, ] i nstea d of taking the initiat ive to do it them selv es . ”19 s wall owing disord er to t he pa rents, dur ing a vis it three weeks before trial , the parents tried to r i nse Penn y ’ s mouth out with water, which concerned Leal because she had

w arned the par ent s about the risk that P enn y could aspirate.
Leal wo rked one

- on

- one with the p arents t o i nfor m the m and to edu cate them

on each of the chil dren ’ s needs

. She had ho pe d that with the one

- on

- one coach ing the
par ents woul d become more engaged “ in wanting to kno w abou t w hat they could change or d o b etter
. ” But when Leal had asked M o ther and Father to e xplain e ach
child ’ s needs, ne ither paren t was able to ful ly ex plain them

. Mother, the main

ca regive r, had neither demo ns t ra ted to Leal that she knew what was required on a
da y
- t o

- d ay bas is to care fo r the children nor shown any inte res t in learning

. Leal h ad no re a s on to believe tha t Fath er “ w o u ld do an ything differentl y than
what he ha s done in the pa st , which [was] to be mainly a provider. ” When que stioned

a t t ria l reg ard ing eac h of the children ’ s specific needs, F ather was able o nly to
ge nerally describe each ch ild ’ s medical condition and was u nable to name th eir medical provide rs or describe their medi cal need s, treatments , and the rap ies

. H e admitte d t h at a lth ough he had attend ed visits each week, he had never ask ed ab out the children ’ s ph y sical, emoti on al , and med ical need s.
L eal did not believe th at Mother has the i ntellectual capacity or desire to meet
her children ’ s spec ialized need s or t hat Fath er can meet those needs. O ’ Brien
described M other a n d Father as “ borderli ne functionin g ” but , like L ea l, sh e though t their inability to me et their children ’ s needs was a combinat ion of unwillingness and20 lack of capacity

. I n past cas es, M othe r and Fa ther had shown th at th ey were un wil ling
to take care of thei r chi l dren.
G iven th e D epartment ’ s ex t ensive history w i th the family and its concerns
abo ut negl ectful super v

ision, Leal did not believe that the Depart ment ’ s co ncern s ha d
bee n ad dressed t hroughout this latest ca se, which had lasted nearly two yea rs. D uring the case, t he parent s had not d e monstrat e d that they would c hange the way th ey
paren t and supervise th e children and had not admitted that their parenting sk ill s coul d improve. Alth ough Mother and Fa ther love the ch ildren a nd participated in
service s, they ha d not progr essed enough to addr ess the Department ’ s conce rns a nd to prove that th ey could meet the children ’ s needs and provide for them

. L e al believed tha t termination of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s parent al right s to the
children was in the children ’ s best intere st be cause the parents we re unable to meet
th e ir child re n ’ s sp ecial needs a nd were unwilling to make the significant lif e changes

nece ssa ry to e na b le them to tak e care of their children.

v ii. The trial court ’ s ruling
As promised, the Depar tment move d to dis miss the te rmina tion case as to My ra and An n e , and the t rial court granted the mo tion

. The trial cour t fou nd by cl ear and co n vinc ing evidence that termination of M o ther ’ s and Fat her ’ s parental rights to Ross, Finn, Macy, and Penny wa s in the children ’ s best interest and that the
D epa rtment ha d es ta b lished by clear and co nvincing evidence the conduct grounds

un der Subs ecti on s (D ) ( endan ger ing environment ) , (E) ( endangering conduct ) , and21 (O) (failing to complete service plan )

. See Tex. Fa m. Cod e Ann. § 161 .001(b)(1)(D) , (E) , (O), ( b)( 2). The trial cou r t also fou nd tha t Mother had failed to prove by a
pr epon d er an ce of t he evidence that she was unable to comply with a cour t

- ord ered service pla n and that despite making a good

- f ai th eff ort, her fai lure to comply was not her fau l t
. See id. § 161.001 (d). The trial cour t thus terminated Mother ’ s and Father ’ s
pa renta l ri ghts to the children and appointed the Depar tment as the chi ldren ’ s

m anaging cons ervator. C. Mother an d Fat her appeal
Mot her and Father timely filed a notic e o f appe al and raise nine issues

. 7 I n their
fir st, se co nd, and sixth issues, they complain that the evidence was legall y and factually
insuf fi cient to support the trial court ’ s condu ct and best

- interest fin dings. In their

re ma ining issues, they co mp lain that the trial court erred b y f ailing t o make a f inding
that M other and Father were un able to comply with a c ourt

- ordered service plan despite maki ng a good

- faith e ffort an d that the ir failure to compl y was not their fau l t (issu e three ); by f ailing to give the parents more time to compl ete th e i r serv ice plan ( issue four); by admitting evidence regarding Myra and Anne (issue fi ve); by finding
that Father ’ s parental ri ghts sho uld be ter minate d because h e failed to compl y wit h
p ro vi sions of a court order specifically establishing the action s nece s s a ry fo r Mo ther

7 In the trial court, M o ther an d Father ea ch ha d a cou rt

- appointed atto r ney. On appeal, t hey are jointl y represented by a retained attorne y who fil ed a si ngle brief on their be half.22 t o obtain the re turn of the childre n under an invalid Family Cod e section 8 (issue

seven ); by admitting into ev iden ce Mother ’ s psychological examination (iss ue eight ) ; and by fa iling t o pr ovide Mother with an at to rney ad litem (i ssue nine).
We will address th ese issues out of order because doing so a ids in our disposition of the appea l.
II. A p pointment of Counsel under Family Code Section 161.003
In their ninth issue, the par ents assert that because M other ’ s p sychologica l
evalu ati on st ates t hat sh e has limi ted cognitive skills and is borderlin e i ntellectual
fu nction ing , Family Code Se ction 161.003 (b) r equi red the tri al court to appoint
Mother an a tto rney ad litem

. See id. § 161.00 3(b). T he p arents argue tha t “ an a t torn ey ad li tem should have been appoint ed w ith respect to a ny cogniti ve or intellectual
deficit so a s to properly en s u re M other ’ s true needs were carri ed out during the pende ncy of this case and towards the ultimate goal of reu nification

. ” T he p a rent s

8 Paragraph 7 of the trial court ’ s terminatio n ord e r i s titled “ Termination of Respondent Father [ ’ s]

. . . Parenta l R ights

. ” In S ubpa ragraph 7.2.3, t he trial court foun d that Father “ failed to comply with the provisions of a court order th at spec ifically established the action s nece ssary for the mothe r to obtain the re turn of the children

. . . pursuant to § 1 61.00(b) (1) (O) , Te xas F amily Code. ” [ Emp h ases a dded.] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(O). The Department contends that these are clerical errors and urges us to mo dify the j udgme nt
. We agree that these errors are cle rical , and we will thus modify t he trial co urt ’ s j udgme nt to correct the m . See In re L.F. , No. 02

- 19

- 00421

- CV, 2020 WL 2201905, at * 4

– 5 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth, May 7, 2020, no pet

. ) (mem. op.); In re D. M. , N o. 0 4

- 14

- 00059

- C V, 2014 WL 291745 8 , at *3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— San An tonio June 25, 2014 , no pet. ) (m e m. op
. ) ; se e also Tex. R. Ap p . P. 43 .2(b).23 contend that the trial court ’ s failur e to appoi nt Moth er an attorney ad li tem violated
Mother ’ s due

- process righ t s. Section 161.003 allo w s termin ation of a pare nt ’ s rights if the parent has a

me n tal or emot ional i ll ness or mental def ici ency that renders her unable to provide for
her ch i ld ’ s physical , e motional, and mental nee ds until the ch ild ’ s eighteenth b irth day

. See id. § 161.003 (a). T he trial court mu s t appo int an atto r ney ad li tem to represent the
p ar e nt “ [i ]mmediately after the fi ling of a suit under [Section 161.003]

. ” Id. § 161

. 003(b )

. Here, th e Department did not seek to terminate M o ther ’ s parental righ ts under
Section 1 61.003; it s ought to ter minate he r rights u nder Sectio n 1 61.00 1. See id

. § § 161. 00 1 , .003. T he t ria l cou rt w as thus not required to appo int Mothe r an att orney

a d li tem under Sec tion 161.003( b )

. See id. § 1 61.003 (b) ; cf. In re J.J. , No. 02

- 20

- 0 0218

- CV, 2020 WL 763 9579, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth De c. 23, 2020, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( “ Section 161. 003 is no t the exc lusive way to terminate th e parental ri ghts of

some o ne with a mental illness or deficiency

. ” ). Th e trial court di d, however, appoint

at torney s ad litem for Mother a nd Father a few days after the Department s ued to
terminate their parental right s, presu mabl y because they were in dige nt and were thus

e ntitled to appointed cou n sel. See Te x. Fam. Code Ann

. § 10 7.013(a). These attorne ys represented the paren ts through trial. We overrule parents ’ ninth is s ue.24 III. Extension of Time to C omp l ete Pare nting Plan
In their f ourth issue, Mother and Fat her complain th at the tr ial court e rre d by
“fail ing to e xt end th e time to provide [ t hem] the abi lity to co mplete th e final require ment of thei r parenting plan. ”
As the June 8, 2020 s tat u tory dis missal date was approa ching , the Department
moved the trial court on April 29, 2 020, to ret ai n ju risdiction and t o set a new dismissal dat e . See id. § § 263.401, .403(a

- 1)

. O n May 1 8, 202 0, t he trial court granted
the motion and e xte nded the case ’ s dismissal date to November 13, 20 20. The trial
commenced on October 2 , 2020

. The paren t s conten d that bec ause they comp leted all service s e xcept those not available t o them and because the De partment ’ s witness es tes tif ied t hat the parties perform ed all service s requ ested of them before COVID

- 1 9 restrictions we re put in pla ce , the trial cour t s ho uld have exten ded t he time f or the parents to complete their
service plans

. But M o ther and Fath er did not ask the t ria l cou rt f or more time to complete their se rvic es . They have thus failed to preserve this issue for our rev iew. S ee T ex. R. A pp. P. 3 3. 1 (a)(1) (A) ( ex plai ning t hat t o preserve a complaint for appellate
revi ew, a party must presen t to t he tri al court a tim ely requ est, objection, o r motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling, if not apparent fr om the
request ’ s, objectio n ’ s , or motion ’ s con text )

. We overrule parent s ’ fourt h issu e.25 IV. The Tr ial Cou rt ’ s Evidentiary Rulings
Th e pa rents ’ fi fth and eight h is sues challenge the trial court ’ s admission o f
evidence. In their fi fth issue, the parents comp lain th at the trial cou rt erred by
admitti ng ev idence regarding Myra a n d Anne

. In their e ighth issue, the pare nt s

c om pl ain that t he trial court erred by admitting Mother ’ s psyc hological examination

. A. Ev idence regarding Myra a nd An ne The paren ts claim that the trial c ourt e rred b y adm itting evidenc e about Myr a and Anne an d by “considering it a s evid en ce of t he paren ts ’ inability to care for their
children when all evidence indicated the Depar tment had t emporary man aging

con se rva torship o f the g irls for seventeen mon th s ” because th e Dep artment later
dismissed t he ter mination c ase as to Myra and Anne a nd re turn ed them to the parents. The parents did not o bject to the admission of any evidence regarding M yra and th us waived any appella te co mplaint concerning the admissio n of such evi dence

. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see al so Tex. R. Ev id. 10 3 (a)(1) ; B ushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711, 7 12 (Tex. 1991) (op. on reh ’ g)

. M other and Father each o bjected to
Lea l ’ s tes t i fying regarding Ann e ’ s as sociation wit h susp ected sex t r affickers. T he
pa ren ts argued that such evidence was irrelev an t t o t h e termina tion of their pa rental rights to Ross, Finn, Macy, and Penny b e cause the Department had represented that it

wa s going to dismiss t he cas e as to Anne. In re sponse, the Depar tme nt explained th at
Le a l ’ s testimony about A nne “ speak s to the o vera ll need to protect al l of th ese26 children, including a young fem ale child, [Macy], and w hat dangers might be posed to her if she were r eturned home. ” The trial co urt overruled the p arents ’ obje c tions.
We re view a tr ial court ’ s rul ings in a dmitting or excluding evidence for an abuse
of discretion

. Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., I nc. , 464 S.W.3d 33 8, 34 7 (Tex. 2015)

. And as the long

- established formulation h as it, a trial cour t abuses its disc r eti on if it
acts wit hout reference t o a ny g uidin g rules or principles

— that is, if it acts arbitrarily or
unreasonabl y. Low v. Henry , 221 S.W .3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007 ); Cire v. Cummings , 134 S.W.3d 835, 838

– 39 (Tex. 2004). Just because we mi ght have ruled di f fer ently
und er the c ircu mstances d oe s n ot m ean t hat we can hold that a trial court abused its
discretion

. E.I. du Po nt de Nemours & Co. v. R obinson , 923 S.W.2 d 549 , 558 (Tex. 1995);

se e Low , 221 S.W.3d at 620. If the re cord shows any legi timate b asis for a n e videntiar y ruling , we must upho ld th at r uling

. Owens

- Corning Fiber glas Corp. v. Malone , 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1 998). Here, although the Department in di ca ted t hat it in tended to di smiss its
termination su it as to My ra and Anne , Leal ’ s t estimo ny regard i ng Anne ’ s as socia tio n wi th suspect ed se x tr affic kers was rel evant to at least two of the factors the trial court

c ould consider in determin i ng whether termina tion was in the four you ng er children ’ s b est inter est : the parents ’ parenting ab ili ties and the p o ss i ble fu tur e em otio nal and ph ysic a l da nger to the children

. See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

– 72 (Tex.
197 6 ). We thus conclude that the trial court di d no t abuse its discreti o n by al lowi ng27 testimony about Anne ’ s associat ion with s usp ected sex traf f ic k ers , and we overr ul e the p arent s ’ fi fth issue.
B. Mother ’ s psychological e va lua tion The parents next complain tha t the trial court erred by (1) admitting M o ther ’ s
p sychological ev aluation into evidence and allowing Leal to “ read into t he record a
slive r of an opin i on . . . rendered by a n u nq uali fied exp ert cont aining a blanket

sta tement that

. . . Mother was unable to care for her childre n based on her
ps ycholo gical evaluation ” a nd (2) by overruling “ couns el ’ s objection as to [ the ] ri ght

to c ross

- examin a tio n . ” Here, Moth er ’ s an d Fa ther ’ s psychological evaluation s and accompanying
bu siness

- records affidavit were served on the p arents more than 14 day s before trial.
S ee Tex. R. Evid. 80 3 (6), 902( 1 0)

. Neither pa rent raised a pretrial objection. When the
D ep a rtm en t ini ti al ly off ered t hem into evidence at trial , Mother stated that she had no objection

. Father , however, lodged the fol lowing objection in a n exchange with t he
trial

- court judg e : [Fa ther ’ s attor ney] : Your Hono r, I believe

-- I believe they are se lf

au t hen ticate d in t he sense of w e don ’ t need a Business Reco rds Affidavit or a custodia n of records to c ome present these; howe ver, I ’ m going to
o bject to any attemp t to interpret any of

-- anything tha t ’ s being said or was stated within the

-- the medic al re c ord s them selves

. THE COURT: So you ’ re preempting the ob jection? [Father ’ s attorne y] : Well, I ’ m obj ecting to them coming i n. I do have an
o bj ection.28 THE COURT: Okay. Make sure I unders tand. You sa id that

-- you said

-- it sounded like you contradic te d a n d I j ust wan t t o mak e sure. You said that they ’ re self

- a uthenticating. You said tha t you have no obj ection to them

-- [Fat her ’ s attorney] : We ll, they ’ re just se lf

- authenticating with re gards to
we don ’ t need a me dical records

-- a custodian of recor ds to t es t ify these
a re the actual records , but for any other purpose, I ’ m objecting to t hem. The trial court then admit ted the evaluatio ns and affidavit into evidence

. To preserve a c omplaint for ap pellate review, a party must present to th e tr ial

court a timel y re q uest, ob jec tion, or motion t hat states the specifi c ground s for the
desired ruling, if not apparen t from the reques t ’ s, objection ’ s, or motion ’ s context. Tex. R. App. P. 33. 1(a)(1)(A); see also Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1). If a p ar ty fail s to do this ,

err o r i s not pre ser ved. Bushell , 803 S.W.2d at 7 12

. A specific obj ection is one tha t enables the trial cou rt to understand th e pr ecise grounds s o as to make an informed ruling and t hat affords the offering party an opportunity to rem ed y a ny d efect, if
pos si bl e . S ee Tex. R . A pp. P . 33.1(a); Tex. R. Evid. 103 (a)(1); Campbe ll v. State , 85 S .W.3d 176, 185 (Tex. 20 02); McDaniel v. Ya r bro ugh , 898 S.W.2d 25 1, 252 (Tex. 1995). To be specific , an objection mus t “clearly and distinctly” m ake th e tri al c ourt aware of t he par ty ’ s comp lai nt. E quistar Chems., L.P. v. Dres ser
- Rand Co. , 240 S.W.3d 864, 8 68 (Tex. 2007)

. Here , Mother did not obje c t to the p sychologica l evaluation s and thus failed to
p reserve her comp la int regarding their admission

. See T ex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (1) ( A); see29 al

so Tex. R. Evid . 10 3(a)(1) ; Bushell , 803 S.W.2d at 7 12

. We overrule this portion of the
par ents ’ eig hth issue.
Father did n ot dispute that the p sychological evaluati o n s were admis sible under
Texas Rule of Evidence 902 ( 1 0 )

. See Tex . R. Evid. 902( 1 0)

. His o bje ct ion

— to any

at tempt to in ter pret the records and to use them “ for any other purpose ”

— was no t specific enough for the tr ial court (or us ) to understand the nature of his complaint

. To the extent that Father ’ s objection c ou ld be c ons tru ed as co m pla ining tha t th e
p s ychological evaluation s were inadmissible hearsay, that co mpla in t does not compor t with the complaint Father make s o n appeal

— that the p sychologist was an un q u alif ied
expert
. F ather has thus failed to preserve t hi s com plai nt for our rev i ew , and we

o verrule this portion of the parents ’ eighth issue

. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 33. 1(a); F.C. v. T

ex. Dep ’ t of Family & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 1 9

- 00625

- CV, 2020 WL 101998, at
*5 (Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. o p.).
Aft e r the trial c o u rt admitted the p syc hological evaluat ions, the D ep artment asked L eal to read alou d por tions of Mother ’ s eval uation , which Leal beg a n to do
verbatim

. Mother then objected, explain ing that s he belie ved that Father was correc t befor e : “ I don ’ t think this is t he proper sp ons or. W e cannot cross

- e xamine [Leal]
based on what this couns elor wrot e. If the counselor was here, I think all that
l anguage comes in, but as of right now, I think it canno t com e in through the
caseworker. ” The Department responded30 An d, Your Hon or, I bel ieve the s e are b usiness r ecords. They ’ re records that are kept in the reg ular course of the business, they ’ re made in the regular course of her business, and what ’ s c o ntai ned in them i s free to be read in to th e re cord. It ’ s not hearsay because it is a uthen ticated a nd it i s an exce ption to the hearsay rule und er the bu siness rec ords predicate. I ’ m not asking [Leal] to interpret any of these, but to simply read the words that are written on this page

. Fa ther agreed with Mother “ wi th regard s to a n y in terpretat i on ” an d added , I haven ’ t an y further object ion, and I agree wi th [ M other ] with regards to any interpretation. Any interpretation with regards to these, t he y ’ re trying to as sume

-- or trying to pres ume anything from the read i ng othe r than just p l ain read in g an d m oving on, that ’ s one thing. But if [ the Depar tment ] ’ s t rying to

-- [ the Depar tment] ’ s going to try to cross

examine [Leal] on these, then I ’ m going to obj ect. The trial cour t overr uled the objection. As noted, a party must ma k e a tim ely o bj e ction to preser v e a complaint f or appell ate review

. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see also Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)

. An objection is timely if m ade at the point evidence is offere d and b efor e the evidence is
admi t ted. See Tex. R. Evid. 1 03; B ushell , 803 S .W.2d at 712 . An objection to ev idence
th at was pre viously admitted without objection c omes too late. Perry Homes v.
Alwattari , 33 S.W.3d 376, 38 6 n. 10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2000, pe t. de nied ). On appeal, the pare n ts assert that the tria l cour t erre d by ov errul ing this
ob j ection “ as to [ the] righ t to cross

- examination of the wi tnesses ’ statement that

. . . Mother was ‘ unable to care proper ly for h er chi ldren

. ’ ” As b est we ca n tell, the
parents ’ trial objecti on and complaint on a ppeal ap pe a r t o be that the t rial cou rt ’ s admi ssion o f the p sy chologist ’ s e v al uation s under the business

- records exception to31 the hearsay r ule deprived them of thei r righ t to cross

- ex amin e th e p sycholo gi st wh o

ex amined the parents and prepa red the evaluations. But b y th e time Mo ther a nd
Fa the r lo dged t his ob jection, the evalua tions had already bee n admitted into evidence and their objection was too late. See i d. We thu s ov errule the remainder of the pa r en t s ’

e ight h issue.
V. E viden ce Supporting Termination of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s Pare ntal Rights
In t h eir fi rst, second, and s i xth issues, Mo ther and Father challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial cour t ’ s findings ( 1) that
the y violate d th e t wo enda n germent gro unds in Family Code Section 161. 00 1(b) (1)(D )
and ( E) ; ( 2 ) that the y fai led to com plete their service plan; and (3) that termi nation of their parental rights was in the children ’ s best interest

. See T ex . Fam. Code Ann. § 161.0 01(b) (1)(D) , ( E) , (O), (b)(2).
A. Bur den of p roof a nd s t andard s of r e view
For a tria l court to terminat e a parent

– child relationship, the party seeking
termination must prove two elements by c lear and convincing ev iden ce: ( 1) that t he
pare nt ’ s actions sati sfy one ground listed in Family Code S ection 161.0 0 1( b)( 1); and ( 2) t hat t ermination i s in the child ’ s be st interest. Id. § 161.001(b); In re E.N.C

. , 384 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. 20 12); In re J.L. , 163 S.W .3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Eviden ce is

c l ear and convincing if it “ will produc e in the mind of th e trier of fact a firm belief or

c onviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. ” T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007; E .N.C. , 384 S.W.3d at 802

.32 To determine whether the evi de nce i s le gally sufficient in parental

- term ination

cases, we lo ok at all t he evidence in the ligh t most fav or abl e to the chall enged finding
to determine whether a reasona ble factfinder could form a fir m belief or convicti on

t ha t the finding is true. In re J .P.B. , 18 0 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). W e assume that
the fac tfinder se t tled any evi dentia ry co nflicts in f avo r of its findi ng if a reasonable
factfinder could have don e so. Id. We disregard all evid ence that a reasonab le
f

actfinder could have disbeliev ed , and we consider undisput ed evidence e ven if it is

contrar y t o the find i ng. Id. That is, w e con sider evid en ce favorable to t he finding if a reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard contrary evid ence unless a reason able
factfinder could not. See i d. T he fa c tfi nder is the so le judge of t he witnesses ’ credibili ty and demean o r. In re J.O .A. , 2 83 S. W.3d 336, 34 6 ( Tex. 2009).
We must perform “ an exacting review of the ent ire record ” in determining the factual sufficiency of t he evidence supporting the ter mi natio n of a parent

– child
relationsh ip. In re A.B. , 437 S.W. 3d 498, 500 ( T ex. 2014). N everth eless , we give du e d eference to th e factfinder ’ s finding s and do not supplant them with our own. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 10 8 (T ex. 2006). We review the whole r ecord to decide
whether a factf inder could reasonably form a f irm convic t ion or belie f t hat the parents vi ol ate d a predicate ground li sted in Section 161.001(b)(1) and t hat the termination of the pare nt

– child relationshi p wo uld be in the chil dren ’ s best in teres t
. T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) ; In re C.H. , 89 S. W.3 d 17, 28 ( T ex. 2002). I f the factf inder33 reas on abl y could form s uch a firm conviction or belief, then the ev idence is fact ually
sufficient. C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 1 9

. Clear and co nvincing eviden ce of o n e p leaded conduct groun d is sufficient to
support a t erm ination de c ision if cou pled w ith s ufficient be st

- interest evide nce. See
I

n re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Te x. 2003); In re D.M. , 58 S.W.3d 801, 813 (Tex. App.

— For t Worth 2001, no pet.). But if o ne of the pleaded and found conduct grounds is based on end ang erment

— Sec t ion 161.001( b)(1)( D) or (E)

— then we must fully addre ss that ground, if presented on a ppeal, based on the future coll ateral consequences of s uch a f inding. See In re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 2 30, 2 3 5

– 3 7 (Tex. 2019) ;

see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (b)(1)(M) ( allowing ter minati on of par ent ’ s
pa rental rights if such rights to another child had been terminated under S ection
1 61.001(b)(1)(D) or (E)).
B. The trial co urt ’ s end angerment find i n gs As n ote d, the pare nts ar gu e that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient

to su pport the tr ial c ourt ’ s finding s th at they violated the two end an germen t grounds in Section 161.001(b) (1 )( D) an d (E) of the Family Code. Because we conclude that

su ff icien t ev i den ce supports termi nation un der Sub section (E) , we will not a ddress
Subse ction ( D)

. Se e In re T .C

. , No. 02

- 19

- 0029 1

- CV, 2019 WL 6606172, at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 5, 2019, pet. de nied) (mem. op.) (“ We read N. G

. to say that
an affirm an ce un d e r either (D) o r (E) suffices bec ause under (M) an affir mance und e r34 one makes the oth er m oot.”); see a lso In re A.S

. , N o. 02

- 19

- 00422

- CV,
2020 WL 990028, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 2, 2020, n o pet
. ) (mem. op.)

. Subsection (E) provides that pa re ntal rig h t s may be terminated if the pare nt has “engaged in cond uct or k nowingly pla ced the c hi ld with per so ns who engaged in conduct [that] endanger s the physical or emotional well

- being of the child.” Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E). To “endange r” mean s t o expose a child to loss or injur y, or to jeopardize a c hild ’ s e motional or physica l he alth. Tex. De p ’ t of Human
Serv s. v. Boyd , 727 S.W.2d 5 31, 533 (Tex. 1987); see In re M. C. , 917 S.W.2d 268,
2 69 (Tex. 1996) ; In re J.T.G. , 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 ( Te x. Ap p.

— F ort Worth 2003, no pet.). Under Subsection (E ), the rel evant i n quiry is whe ther ev id en ce exists t ha t the endangermen t of the child ’ s well

- be ing was the direct result of the parent ’ s conduct,
inc luding acts, omissi ons, or failures to act. J.T.G. , 1 21 S. W.3 d at 125. Subsection (E) requires not just a s ingle act or omis s ion but rath er a vo lu nt ary, delibe ra te, and
conscious course of conduct by th e parent. Id.
Mother assert s that given her limited co gni tive functio ning , she could not have
kno wingly e ng aged in c onduct that en dangered her child ren ’ s physical and emot ional

w e ll

- being. Bu t the s t a tu t e ’ s plain la nguage d oes not require that a parent kn owingly
engage in en dangering co nduct. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 61.001(b)(1)(E)

. To
support ter min at ion un d er Subsection (E), it is not nec essary to establish tha t a parent
inte n ded t o endan g er a c hild

. See M .C. , 917 S .W.2d at 270. Nor is it necessary to
establish that the conduct was directed at the chi ld or that the chil d a ctually suffered35 injury. Id. at 2 69; Bo y d , 727 S.W.2d at 533. Rather, it is sufficient if the p arent ’ s conduct endan ger ed th e chil d ’ s wel l

- being. S ee Walke r v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Family &
Protective Servs. , 312 S.W.3d 608, 616

– 17 (Tex. App

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

. Moreover , t he en dan g eri ng c onduct does not have to occur in th e child ’ s
pre sence. Id. at 6 1 7. And t he conduct may occ u r before the chil d ’ s birth and either
before or after the child ’ s removal by the Department. Id. ; see J. O.A. , 283 S.W.3d at
345 . A p ar ent ’ s pa st e ndangering conduct may create an inference that t he past conduct may recur an d fur t he r jeop ardize the child ’ s prese nt o r future physical or
emotional well

- being. See D.M. , 58 S.W.3d at 812. Here, Moth er and Father arg ue that there is no evide nc e o r ins uffi cient
evidence to support the tri al court ’ s finding s that they engaged in conduct t h at enda nger ed thei r children ’ s p hysi cal or emotional well

- being or knowingly place d their
children with persons who e ngaged in conduct that en d anger ed their ph ys ica l or

emot ional well

- bein g . We disagree.

Mother was the children ’ s pr imary caretaker

. B ro wn r eported that t he f l oors of
the fa mil y ’ s home had mud and dir t on them , the house sm elled of human urine, an d
the re were “ ton s of bugs and flies

. ” T he h ome was so unsanitary t h at Brown feared
that th e children w ould get si ck from the home ’ s condition

. B ro wn also r eported t ha t the childre n wer e wearing tattered clo thes and were extremely d irty

. Accordin g to
Brown , the ch ildre n h ad not bathe d in a v ery long ti m e and t h e ir bod y odor was so strong that “ [i]t was to t he point where I was getting sick intervie wi n g them [, ] and I36 was going to hav e to l eave at one point because I couldn ’ t s tay in t here any longe r

w

i th the od or . ” When confronted, Mother was unc oncer ned with the home ’ s condition and her children ’ s cleanlines s ; F ather claimed that “ he had no idea wha t w a s going on , ” e ven t hough he lived th ere . D uring the FBS S cas e , then six

- year

- old Penny wa s h ospitalized. At that time,

s he weighe d 25 pou nds a nd was e xtre mely malnourished and dirty. Her lice

- infested
hair was so matted that i t had to be cut to treat the l ice. Wh en Gre en s p o ke with both
pare nts about Penny ’ s failure to thrive , both parents cla imed th a t they were unaware
that P enny ’ s w ei ght was a n i ssue , eve n though then

- s ix

- year

- old Penny was the size of
a toddler. Leal testifie d that she believed that Pe n n y was i n grav e dan g er due to the
par ents ’ medical negl ect. Neg lect can be just as danger ou s to a child ’ s emotion al and ph ysical he alth as in te ntio nal abuse. In re E.A.W.S. , N o. 2

- 06

- 00031

- CV, 2006 W L 3525367, at *10 (Te x. App.

— For t Worth Dec. 7, 200 6, pe t
. deni ed ) (mem. op. )

. B y allowing the children to
live in such unsa nitary conditio n s at home , Mother and F a ther endangered each

c hild ’ s h e alth and physical well

- b eing. See , e.g. , I n re M.C. , 917 S .W. 2d at 270 ; In re W.R.E. , 167 S. W.3d 636, 6 4 2 ( Tex . App.

— Dallas 20 05, pet. de nied )

. Moreover, t he
evidence of Mother ’ s and F ather ’ s continued negle ct of Penn y
— which resulted in he r h ospit aliz ation du ring th e FBSS case

— s upport s a finding that the parents engaged in
a course of conduct end angering al l the c hil dren ’ s phys ic al or emoti onal well

- being.
See In re C.E.K. , 214 S.W.3d 4 92, 497 (Tex. App.

— Dal las 2006, no pet.) (stating that if37 a par ent abuses or negl e cts the other parent or children, that conduct can b e us ed to support a finding of end angerme n t ) ; see also E. A.W.S. , 20 06 W L 35 25367, at *10 ( “ If a parent abuses or neglects the other parent o r children, t hat conduct can be used to
suppor t a find ing of enda ngerment even against a child wh o was not yet born at the
time o f the conduc t. ” ); In re D. T. , 34 S.W.3 d 625, 636

– 37 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth
2 000, pet. denied) (op. on reh ’ g) (stating that evidence of conduct before child is born,
as well a s evidence of h ow a par ent has treated ano ther child or spouse, is relevant regarding whet her a co urse of conduct under Subs ec t ion (E) h a s b een e stab lished )

. Viewing the evidence in the light most f avorable to the trial court ’ s Subsection (E) findin g s , we conclude tha t a r easo nable fact find e r could have formed a firm b e lief
or conviction that Mot her and Father had engaged in cond uct or h ad k now in gl y pla ce d Ross, Fin n, M acy , and Penny with p er sons who had en ga ged in conduct that
end angered the children ’ s physical or em o tiona l we ll

- being. See T ex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (E) ; J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d at 573

. We thus hold tha t the ev idence i s le gally

s uffic ient to support t he trial court ’ s Subsection (E) fi nding s . See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b) (1) (E) ; J.P.B. , 180 S .W. 3d at 573

. A nd based on our review of the
entire re cord and giving d ue deference to the fac t finder ’ s Subse ction ( E) findi ng s , w e lik ewise c onclude that the factfinder reasonably could have form ed a firm convicti on

o r belief that Mother and Father had eng age d in cond uct or had k now in gly place d Ross, Fin n, Macy , and Penny with p er sons who had en gaged in conduct t hat

en d angered t he c hildr en ’ s ph ysical or em otion al well

- being

. See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann

.38 § 161.001(b)(1) (E) ; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19. We thus hold tha t t he ev iden ce is factually sufficient to support the trial court ’ s Subsec tion (E) finding s . See Tex. Fam.
Cod e Ann. § 1 61. 001( b )(1 ) (E) ; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19

. Because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to suppor t termination
under Sub section ( E) , Mot her ’ s and Father ’ s challenges to the sufficiency of the
evi dence suppor ting the trial court ’ s findin g s under Su bsec tion ( D) (endanger ing

en v iron ment) are moot. See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.0 01 (b)(1); A. S. , 2020 WL 990028, a t *5 ; T.C. , 2019 W L 6606 172 , at * 1 n .3. S imilarly , w e need not
address the sufficienc y of the evidence to su pport the other conduct g round

— S ubs ecti on ( O) (failure to complete s ervice pl an)

— found by the trial court , ex cept as

to correct the judgment as to Father

. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; see also Tex . Fam. Code
A n n. § 161 .001(b)(1) ; A.V. , 113 S.W.3d at 362 ; In re D. D.G. , 423 S. W.3d 468 , 475 (T e x. App

. — Fo rt Worth 2014, no pet.). 9
C. Th e trial co urt ’ s best

- interest find i ngs Th e parents also challenge the legal and f actual evidentia ry suffi cien cy to support t he trial court ’ s finding s tha t termination o f their parental rights was in the
best in teres t o f Ro ss, Finn, Ma cy, an d Penny

.

9 But fo r correcting the judgment ’ s harmless cle rical errors, w e likewise need not address Mothe r and Fat her third and s even th issues, which relate to the trial cour t ’ s Subsection ( O) findings. See Tex. Fam. Co de A n n. § 161.0 01(b)(1) (O) , (d) ; see a lso Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

.39 Altho u gh we generally presume that keeping a child with a parent is in the
child ’ s be st inter est , In re R .R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006), the best

- interest

an alysis is child

- centered, focusing on the child ’ s w ell

- be i n g, safe ty, and developmen t,
In re A.C. , 56 0 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). In determining whether evidence is
sufficient to suppo rt a bes t

- in terest finding, we review the entire record. In re E. C .R. , 402 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013)

. Evidence probat iv e of a c hil d ’ s bes t interest may be
the same ev ide nce that is p robative of a S ubsection (b) (1) ground. Id. at 249; C.H. , 89 S.W .3d at 2 8 ; see T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2)

. We also consider the evidence in light of n onexclu sive factors that th e factfi n d er may app ly in determini ng the child ’ s be st interest:

• t he child ’ s desires;

• the child ’ s emotional and physical needs now and i n t he fu ture ;

• the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future;

• the paren tal abilities of the individ u als seek ing cu s tod y;

• th e programs available to ass ist these individuals to promote the child ’ s best interest ;

• the plans for the ch ild by t hese individuals or by th e agency seeking cus tody;

• the stability of the home o r proposed plac ement;

• the pa rent ’ s acts or omiss ion s in dic at ing that the exist ing pa rent

– c hild relationship is no t a proper one; and

• any excuse for the parent ’ s acts o r o missi ons .40 S ee Holley , 54 4 S.W.2d at 371

– 72 ; see also E.C.R. , 402 S.W.3 d at 249 (stating that in reviewing a best

- interest f i nd ing, “ we co nsid er, among other ev idence, t he Holle y fact ors ” (footnote omitted)); E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d at 8 07. These factors ar e no t exh aust ive, and some listed fac tors may not ap ply to some c a ses. C.H

. , 89 S.W.3d at
27. Furthermore, undisputed evidence o f j ust on e fac tor may suffice to sup port a fi nding th at termination is in the child ’ s best interest. Id. On the other hand , the
p re s ence of s cant evidence rele vant to each fa ctor will not support such a finding. Id.
O n appea l, Mother and Father recit e the law appl ic abl e to th e best

- interest

a nalysis but do not analyze it under this case ’ s facts. We will non etheless under take
the an aly sis o urse lves.
As to the children ’ s desire s , b ecause Ross had limited ver bal abilities and Pe nny is
nonverbal , they were mo st likely i nca pabl e o f expressing th ei r desires ; Finn and Macy might ha ve been capable of expressing their desires , but the Depar tme nt pr esen ted no
such evidence

. There was evidence, however, that the ch ildren loved and were bonded
with Father

. This factor th us wei gh s s ligh tly against termin ating Fa t her ’ s pa rental rights to the children. See In re M.H. , 319 S.W.3d 137 , 150 (Tex. App

. — W aco 2 01 0 , no pet.) . As to Mother, this factor weighs neither in f avor o f nor against termination
of Mother ’ s pare ntal rights to th e c hi ldr en. See E .N.C. , 384 S. W.3d at 8 08

. R e ga rding the physical and emotional needs of the children now an d in the future an d the phy sical and emotional danger to the children now and in the futu re , the record re flects that each
child

— es pecially Pe nny

— ha s s pe c ia lize d n eeds. As outlin ed in det ail abov e, each of41 the children is medica ted and requires various for ms of the rapy. Pen ny ha s hi gh ly specialized medical needs, requires special medical equip ment , is under the care of
several differe nt doctors, an d i s f ed th roug h a G

- tube

. The pa rents nev er prove d that they could meet P enny ’ s needs , e specially regarding how to use and ca re for P enny ’ s G

- button

. O ’ Brien believed that the c hildren were at subst a ntial risk if M oth er ’ s and
Father ’ s parent al righ ts w e re no t t er min ated be cause the paren ts could not meet all
the children ’ s medical and d evelopmental needs

. Additionally, Mother ’ s and Fath er ’ s

a ttitudes toward Myra ’ s and Anne ’ s behavio r raised concerns t hat the children

— especially Macy

— could b ec ome sex

- tra ffi cki ng vi cti m s i n t he future.
Mor e over, a p s ycholog ist diagnosed both parents with “ border line in tellectual functioning ” and co ncl uded that Mother had “ very limited cognitive skil ls and is not likely to a ppro priately make decision s in t he be st interest o f h ers elf a nd her chi ldren ”
and that “ [i] t is likely that [she] will need super vision and support with her children
and should no t be in a de cision

- making an d p ri mary caretaking capacity

. ” See , e.g. , In re D.A.T. , No. 02

- 10

- 00335

- CV, 2012 WL 194 733 8, at *11 ( Tex. A pp
. — F ort Wor th May 31, 2012 , pet. denie d) (m em. op. on r eh ’ g) (considering evidence that parent was borderline inte llectual func tion ing and needed assistance with making legal, medical , and financi al decisions in best

- interest analysi s )

. R egar ding Fa ther, th e p s ych olo gist
concluded that he woul d “ no t be well

- suited for a daily caregiving r ole. ” See id.
N either Leal no r O ’ B rien belie ved that the parents could or wanted to take care
of their children ’ s needs

. Ac cording to Leal, “ it ’ s not just a bout t hei r disabi li t ies42 bec ause I prom pt t hem and they unde rstand w hat I ’ m telling them. It ’ s more about
them no t making signific ant l ife changes to be able to take care of their four
children. ” In fact, t he Departme nt ha d been involv ed with the famil y off and on

r egarding th e sa me concern s ( the c hildren ’ s w eight and the home ’ s condition ) for several years

. Each time, the chil dren and t he home would improve when the Department was involved with the family, but t he par ents would later r eg ress . In short, the evidence cas ts do ubt on the par e nt s ’ abili t y to (1) underst and their
children ’ s needs and provide for their physical a nd em otio nal needs now and in the
future and (2 ) understan d and rec ognize th e phy sical and emotional danger to the

c hildren now and i n the future

. We thus con clud e t hat the trial c ourt was entitled to find that these factors weigh e d in favor of terminating Moth er ’ s and F ather ’ s parental rights. As to the parents ’ parenting abili t i es , the evidence show ed that Mother and Father
love their chi ldren

. Alt hough Le al work ed one

- o n

- one with the parents to i nform and
educate them on each of their children ’ s needs, t he pa rent s failed to demonstrate to Leal tha t they could m eet those needs and par ent their children

. The parents att ended
the s chedul ed visits with the chi ldr en b ut struggl e d to in teract with and s u pervise
them. Leal had to prom pt the parents to engage and inte ract with the chi ldren. During
these vis its, Mother a nd Father never prov ed that they could meet Penny ’ s needs ( e specially how t o care for and use Pen ny ’ s G

- but ton ) an d thus n ever progressed t o

uns upervised vis itation. According to Lea l, the parents “ faile d to demonstrate43 significant life changes

. . . as fa r as parenting g oes. ” Mother, the main caregive r, failed

to de mons trate that she knew wha t is req uir ed o n a day

- t o

- day bas is to care fo r th e children or had any inte rest in learning what is requ i re d

. And Leal and the psychologist did not think that Father c ould take over the caretaking ro l e . Father ’ s trial testimon y conf irm ed this fear as he w a s unabl e t o te sti f y about each c hild ’ s particular needs. Plus, the paren ts ’ a ttitudes toward Myra ’ s and Ann e ’ s behavio r raised

concerns about their abilities to effectively parent the younger children

. We conclude
that the tri al cou rt was entitled to find that th is fact or weigh e d in favo r of terminating
Mother ’ s and F ather ’ s parental right s. Regarding t he pr o gr a ms available to assist the parents in promoting th e children ’ s best
interests , the record re flects that the parents s a t isfie d most of their service pla n ’ s
req uire men ts. They were u nable to complete the parenting class and an online c lass regarding sex tra f ficking, but the Department admi tted that those fa ilures were not the parents ’ fault. In fact, the t rial j udge stated on the re cor d that he was “ co ncer n ed
in this ca se that the Dep artment didn ’ t do all [it] could do to take care of th e s e rvices
tha t were ordered. ” We conclude tha t this factor weigh s against terminating M other ’ s and F ather ’ s paren tal ri ghts.
As to the parents ’ an d the Department ’ s pla n s for t he chil dre n , Father testi fied that he
and Mother had done ev e rythi ng th at t he Depar tment had asked them to do and th at he thi nks they are mu ch more capable of taking c are of the children than t hey we re before the ch i ldren ’ s removal. H e further clai med that he and Mo ther w ere willi ng to44 do w hatever they n eed ed to do to take care of the children , including taking the m t o medic al and therapy appointments and mak ing sure that they are eat ing an d are taken
care of

. But again, Father was unable to describ e each c hil d ’ s par t icular needs , and t he Department b e li eve d tha t te rminating Mothe r ’ s and Father ’ s parental rights wa s in the
childr en ’ s best inter e st. All the children are do ing w el l in fost er care and are rec eiv in g the medication and treatment that they need. M acy ’ s fost e r placeme nt wants to a dopt
her , and F o st er Mo ther ha s a strong bond with Penny, love s her, and want s to
continue to foster Penny. Ross and Fi nn are doing well in th eir c urre nt placements,
and the D epartment ’ s plan is to move them into an adoptio n

- m otivate d home together. We conclude tha t th e tri al co urt was entitled to find that this factor weigh e d
in f avor of terminating Mother ’ s and F ather ’ s parental right s. Regard ing the s tability of the parent ’ s home , the D epartment admitted that the f amily
h ad a stabl e home (they had li ved there more t h an te n yea rs). Father testi fi ed that he

own s the home a nd ha s main tained the same job for 22 year s . The home was safe an d
had wat er and electricity, ther e was food in the home , and the home ’ s condition had impr ove d, even though Leal said i t sti l l ha d a “ fo ul od or . ” We conclude that this
factor we igh s against terminating Mother ’ s and F ath er ’ s parental rights.
A s to the parents ’ acts or omissi on s indicating that the existing p arent

– child relationship is

no t a prop er one and any excuse f or th e par ents ’ acts or omissions , the record reflect s that the children were removed because of the paren ts ’ negl ect and that th e parents had been neglec ting the se children fo r most, if not all, of the ir lives

. M other did no t testif y a t45 trial to offer a ny e xcu s e fo r he r behavio r, but the Department off ered evidence th at she was uncon cerned with her children ’ s condition s and was unw illing to learn w hat
she needed t o do to care for them

. When Father was asked whether he under st ood
that th e Depa r t ment had been inv o lved in the famil y ’ s life for a decade because it though t that he and Moth er were not able to care f or their children, Fath er said t hat they could take care of them. Father said that they had “ never caused any dam age to
anyo ne and even l e ss to our chil dren

. ” But the eviden ce in this case contradic ts
Fa ther ’ s testimony. We conclude that th e trial court was entit led to fi nd that this
factor weig h e d in favor of terminating Mother ’ s and F ather ’ s parental rights.
We r ec ogniz e that n ot all th e H olley fac tor s wei g h ed in favor of terminating
Mother ’ s a nd Father ’ s parental rights to Ross, Finn, Ma c y, and P enn y . Even so , we concl ude that , v iewing the ev idence in the light most f avorable to the trial court ’ s best

- interest findi ng s , a reaso nab le fact fi n d er c ould have fo rmed a firm b e lie f or
conviction that term ination of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s parental rights was in the
child ren ’ s bes t

- interest

. See Tex. Fam . Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b)( 2) ; J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d at
5 73

. We thus hold that the evidence is legall y s uffic ient to supp ort the trial cou rt ’ s best

- interest finding s . See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001 (b)( 2) ; J.P.B. , 180 S.W.3d at
573

. And based on ou r review of the entire re cord and giving due deference to the
fac t finder ’ s best

- interest finding s , w e concl ud e t hat t he f actfinde r reasonably coul d
have formed a firm convicti on o r belief that terminat ion of Mother ’ s and Father ’ s parent al rights was in the children ’ s best

- interest

. See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann.46 § 161.00 1(b) (2) ; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19. We thu s hold that the evid ence is f actually
sufficie nt to supp ort the trial court ’ s best

- interest findin g s . See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 161.001(b)( 2 ) ; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 18

– 19

. D
. Conclusion Having found that the evid ence is legally and factually suffi cient to su pport t he

tr ial cou r t ’ s Subs ec tion ( E) and best

- intere st findings as to both par ents, we overrul e their first, sec ond, and sixth issues.
VI
. Co nclu sion
We modif y Subparagr aph 7.2.3 of the trial court ’ s judgment (1) to delet e

“ mother ” and replac e it wit h “ father ” and (2) to delet e “ 1 61 .00(b)(1)(O) ” and replace
it with “ 161.001(b)(1)(O)

. ” Having ov erruled all th e issues necessary for our dispos iti on o f this appeal, we affirm as mo dified the trial court ’ s judgment ter minating
Mother ’ s and Father ’ s parenta l ri ghts to Ross , Fi nn, Macy , an d Penny. See Tex. R

. App. P. 4 3.2(b).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr E lizabeth Kerr Justice
D elivere d: May 20, 2021