Court Opinion

ID: 9406775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:09:00.726528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.159281
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 27, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                            First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                    NO. 01-23-00031-CV, NO. 01-23-00032-CV
                             ———————————
                    IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.B., A CHILD
                     IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A CHILD

                    On Appeal from the 245th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
               Trial Court Case Nos. 2021-00968J & 2021-00833J

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      M.J.R. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s orders terminating her parental rights

to her two sons, K.J.B. and A.R. In her sole issue, Mother contends that the evidence

is factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of her

parental rights is in the best interest of the children. We affirm.
                                   Background

      These appeals involve two brothers: K.J.B., who was born in June 2014, and

A.R., who was born in January 2016.

A.    Procedural History

      On March 4, 2021, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the

Department) received an “intake” alleging neglectful supervision of five-year old

A.R. by Mother. Police officers found A.R. walking down a busy street towards

Highway 290. The police report described A.R. as dirty, with hives on his skin, and

wearing a soiled diaper. A.R., who was non-verbal, could not tell officers where he

lived. When police officers eventually located Mother, she appeared to be under the

influence of alcohol or drugs and later tested positive for methamphetamine.

      On May 20, 2021, the Department filed its Original Petition for Protection of

a Child for Conservatorship and for Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child

Relationship in Cause No. 2021-00833J. In its petition, the Department requested

that the case be set for a hearing to determine whether A.R. should be removed from

his home and placed in the Department’s temporary managing conservatorship. On

June 10, 2021, the Department filed its Original Petition for Protection of a Child

for Conservatorship and for Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child

Relationship in Cause No. 2021-00968J, seeking emergency possession of K.J.B.

                                         2
The affidavit of Danitra Fields-Frazier, a Department caseworker, was attached to

the petitions.

      In her affidavit, Fields-Frazier stated that Mother had five children but only

A.R. and K.J.B. were still in her care. Her affidavit detailed Mother’s history with

the Department:

   • In June 2009, the Department received a referral alleging physical
     abuse of another child, J.R., by Mother. When J.R. was born, Mother
     tested positive for barbiturates and opiates, and J.R. tested positive for
     barbiturates. J.R. was placed with a relative, and Mother went to jail.

   • In November 2011, the Department received a “case” alleging physical
     abuse of another child, J.S.R., by Mother. The report alleged that
     Mother was using crack cocaine while pregnant and tested positive.
     J.S.R. was removed from Mother and her parental rights were
     terminated in Cause No. 2011-07542J. J.S.R. was later adopted.

   • In July 2014, the Department received a “case” alleging physical abuse
     of K.J.B. by Mother. The report alleged that Mother knowingly smoked
     crack cocaine while in her last trimester of pregnancy with K.J.B. The
     allegations were investigated but there was no evidence that Mother
     caused a physical injury resulting in substantial harm to K.J.B.

   • In August 2014, a report was made alleging neglectful supervision of
     K.J.B. by Mother. Police officers were called to Mother’s residence
     because Mother and her boyfriend were fighting and Mother was
     holding K.J.B. during the fight. Mother tested positive for drugs after
     being admitted to a treatment center.

      Fields-Frazier stated that Mother continued to place her children in danger

due to her substance abuse history and ongoing drug use, her extensive criminal

history, including drug-related offenses, and her history with the Department

                                          3
including the termination of her parental rights to another child. The Department

requested to be named temporary managing conservators of K.J.B. and A.R.

      On June 10, 2021, the trial court made the requisite findings to place K.J.B.

in the Department’s emergency possession. Following a full adversary hearing on

the same day, the trial court ordered that A.R. be placed in the Department’s

temporary conservatorship. Following a full adversary hearing, with respect to

K.J.B., the trial court signed an order on July 2, 2021, in which it made the necessary

findings to keep K.J.B. in the Department’s temporary conservatorship.

      On July 12, 2021, the Department filed a family service plan for Mother. The

plan stated that the Department’s permanency goal was reunification of the boys

with Mother. It described K.J.B. as a healthy seven-year-old boy with no physical

limitations, developmental delays, or emotional or behavioral health issues. K.J.B.

was placed with his father and stated that he was happy but that he missed Mother.

      The plan described A.R. as a healthy five-year old boy with no physical

limitations. The plan stated that A.R. had “severe to profound intellectual disability

and/or autism spectrum disorder with marked to profound deficits in adaptive

functioning in one or more areas: communication, social participation and

independent living across multiple environments.” It stated that A.R.’s cognitive

functioning appeared “to be at or below the moderate intellectual range resulting in

severe and profound deficits in comprehension, achievement, and adaptive

                                          4
functioning,” and that he was nonverbal. A.R. had “mild problems with attachment,”

“may have mild problems with separation (e.g., anxious/clingy behaviors in the

absence of obvious cues of danger) or may avoid contact with caregiver in age-

inappropriate way, and “may have minor difficulties with appropriate

physical/emotional boundaries with others.” The plan noted that A.R. had “a

moderate level of problems with emotional control that interferes most of the time

with functioning.” It stated that A.R. “was having problems with parents, siblings,

and/or other family members that were negatively impacting his functioning.

Frequent arguing or difficulty maintaining positive relationships may be observed.”

The plan noted that A.R. “demonstrates a mild level of interpersonal strengths.

[A.R.] has some social skills that facilitate positive relationships with peers and

adults but may not have successfully maintained previous healthy friendships. [A.R.]

is experiencing severe disruptions in his social relationships. [A.R.] may have no

friends or have constant conflict in relations with others or have maladaptive

relationships with others. The quality of the [A.R.’s] social relationships presents

imminent danger to his safety, health, and/or development.” The report stated that

A.R. was placed in a foster home and had “adjusted well to his placement and enjoys

being around other children.” The Department’s goal was for Mother to “get her

substance use treated and under control,” obtain employment to be able to provide

                                         5
the basic necessities for herself and her children, and be able to provide the children

with structure, supervision, and a safe and stable home.

      To achieve these goals, the Department’s family service plan required that

Mother:

      (1) refrain from engaging in criminal activity,

      (2) maintain employment and provide payroll stubs to her caseworker,

      (3) maintain safe and stable housing for a minimum of six consecutive
      months,

      (4) enroll A.R. in school,

      (5) connect with the autism community and join an autism spectrum disorder
      group,

      (6) educate herself on how to parent a child with special needs,

      (7) submit to random urinalysis and hair follicle testing,

      (8) continue attending outpatient treatment,

      (9) complete a drug assessment,

      (10) complete a domestic violence assessment due to past allegations of
      intimate partner violence,

      (11) participate in individual therapy and follow all recommendations, and

      (12) participate in psychosocial and psychiatric evaluations.

On July 21, 2021, the trial court held a status hearing in K.J.B.’s and A.R.’s cases

and approved the Department’s family service plan for Mother.

                                          6
      On November 29, 2022, shortly before trial, the Department filed its final

permanency report with the court which provided additional details about K.J.B. and

addressed Mother’s compliance with her family service plan. The report stated that

K.J.B. was initially placed with his father but was later removed from his father’s

home in November 2021 after his father “packed up all his belongings and left and

stated that he was no longer going to be taking care of [K.J.B.] . . . .” and told the

Department that his mother could care for K.J.B. K.J.B.’s paternal grandmother

called the Department to inform them that she had been diagnosed with brain cancer

and was not able to care for K.J.B., and that the Department would need to find

another placement for him. K.J.B. was placed in a foster home in November 2021

and later moved to the same foster home where A.R. was placed in July 2022. The

report described K.J.B. as a happy, healthy eight-year old boy who enjoyed watching

YouTube, liked riding his bike and playing with his friends, and loved animals. The

report noted that after a follow-up appointment with his pediatrician in July 2021,

K.J.B. showed signs of a recurring eating disturbance and qualified for mental health

services. The report stated that, in August 2021, a psychologist diagnosed K.J.B.

with “adjustment disorder with anxiety, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,

combined presentation, child neglect, confirmed.”

      Regarding Mother, the report stated that Mother had refrained from engaging

in criminal activity from August 2021 through September 2022. In October 2022,

                                          7
however, Mother was arrested for “prostitution w/3rd or more.” The report stated

that Mother sporadically provided her caseworker with proof of income. From

January through May 2022, she provided proof that she was receiving government

assistance and that her boyfriend received income. However, Mother failed to

provide proof of income for the six months leading up to trial, from June through

November 2022.

      As to housing, Mother failed to provide proof of stable housing to her

caseworker from September through December 2021, but she provided proof of

housing in January and February of 2022. The report showed that, in April 2022,

Mother requested housing through the Star of Hope program. From May through

July 2022, she lived with her mother while waiting for housing through Star of Hope.

In August 2022, Mother informed the Department she was seeking housing through

a program called “The Palace.” However, in October 2022, Mother told her

caseworker that “The Palace” was no longer working with her and she was homeless.

As of November 2022, the month before trial, Mother remained homeless.

      The report showed that Mother initially made progress with her substance

abuse treatment. In September 2021, she was working on completing her outpatient

treatment at Santa Maria. In October 2021, Mother decided to admit herself into

Santa Maria’s thirty-day inpatient program because she was drinking and fighting

with her boyfriend. From January to April 2022, Mother was participating in an

                                         8
outpatient program with the Bes Group. However, in June or July 2022, Mother was

unsuccessful in completing the program due to a positive drug test. Following

another substance abuse assessment, the Department recommended that she

complete eight individual substance abuse counseling sessions. On October 7, 2022,

Mother failed to show up for her counseling session. The report stated that Mother

was not in contact with her substance abuse counseling provider, and the provider

was unable to reach Mother to reschedule her session.

      The report showed that Mother initially complied with the mandatory random

drug testing. She tested negative from August 2021 through May 2022, although she

failed to show up for two tests in February and March 2022. She tested negative in

March and April 2022 but tested positive for cocaine in May 2022. Following the

positive test, Mother failed to show up for requested testing every month from June

through November 2022.

B.    Trial

      Trial began on December 7, 2022. Two witnesses testified: Molly Moser, a

Department caseworker, and L.P., the boys’ foster mother. Mother did not appear.

K.J.B.’s father and A.R.’s father also failed to appear at trial.

      Moser testified that she had been assigned to work on K.J.B.’s and A.R.’s

cases for a little over a year. Moser last spoke to Mother two days before trial and

told her that the final trial date was set for December 7.

                                            9
      Moser testified that, on November 4, 2022, Mother called her and told her that

she was homeless and living in her son’s car and that she may not be able to

participate in visitation. Moser told Mother that if she was able to find transportation

to visitation, Moser would ensure that the visit would happen.

      Moser testified that the Department requested that Mother submit to drug

testing on November 8, 2022, but Mother did not show up. Moser testified that a “no

show” to a requested drug test is considered a positive test. Moser stated that Mother

also did not appear for requested drug tests on July 7, August 10, September 8,

September 12, October 6, and October 26, 2022. In June 2022, Mother submitted to

a hair follicle test and tested positive for cocaine. Moser testified that at the

permanency hearing on August 17, 2022, the trial court ordered Mother to submit to

drug testing, but she did not show up.

      Moser testified that the Department removed the boys from their home after

police officers found A.R., who was then five years old, walking along the feeder

road of Highway 290 and dressed in a diaper. She testified that A.R., who is special

needs and was diagnosed at an early age with autism, is nonverbal and was unable

to tell the officers who his mother was or where he lived. When the officers located

Mother, she appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol and later tested

positive for methamphetamines.

                                          10
      Moser testified that Mother also failed to comply with the Department’s

family service plan. She testified that Mother’s illegal drug use constituted conduct

that was harmful to her children as well as a violation of her court-ordered service

plan. Moser stated that, as of November 2022, Mother did not have a stable home or

employment. Moser testified that Mother had been visiting the children regularly.

Moser testified that Mother relinquished her parental rights to another child, J.L.R.,

in 2012. The court then recessed the trial to allow the parents an opportunity to be

present.

      On December 16, 2022, the trial resumed. Mother again failed to appear.

      Moser testified that Mother had a pending criminal charge at the time of trial

for “prostitution for a third or more offense.” Moser testified that, in 2022, Mother

posted several photos of A.R. with his shirt off on Facebook. In her posts, Mother

stated that A.R.’s eczema was not being taken care of because he was having

outbreaks and that he had never been as skinny in his life as he was in the photos.

Mother stated in her posts that she did not believe that A.R. was being treated

properly and asked others for their opinions. Moser testified that Mother received a

lot of comments on her post. Mother also commented on Facebook that she has never

missed visitation with the boys, and that the Department is “racist,” “mean,” and

“unhelpful” and has done nothing to help her get her children back and is only trying

to take them away from her. Moser testified that the Department was concerned that

                                         11
Mother was inappropriately posting edited photos of her children and promoting

disinformation about her open cases with the Department and the quality of care

K.J.B. and A.R. were receiving in their foster home. Moser testified that she visited

A.R. every month and that the photos did not reflect A.R.’s condition at all. On

December 6, 2022, A.R. was seen by his pediatrician who stated that A.R., who was

previously classified as overweight, was now within his normal weight range.

      K.J.B. and A.R. were placed in the same foster home at the time of trial.

Moser testified that A.R. had been in the foster home since February 2022 and K.J.B.

was placed in the same home in July 2022. She stated that the boys’ needs were

being met in their foster placement, both boys were doing very well, and they were

attending school. She testified that K.J.B. and A.R. were evaluated regularly by their

medical providers. Moser testified that the Department was seeking termination of

Mother’s parental rights to K.J.B. and A.R. due to Mother’s endangering conduct

and her failure to comply with her court-ordered service plan.

      On cross-examination, Moser testified that while Mother did not appear at

trial and had some “falling off” from the service plan, she had previously been fairly

active with her plan. She testified that Mother completed a substance abuse

assessment in June 2022, and that she enrolled herself in an inpatient program

although the recommendation had only been for outpatient services. Moser testified

that Mother later re-engaged in outpatient services and had only a few more sessions

                                         12
to attend to be successfully discharged, and that she successfully completed an

individual therapy program. Mother provided Moser with three paycheck stubs

during the pendency of the case showing that she was employed in home healthcare.

Moser testified that Mother completed all but one session of her domestic violence

treatment program.

      Moser testified that Mother submitted to monthly drug testing from the

beginning of the cases through June 2022, and that she only tested positive for drugs

once during that time. Mother later admitted to using drugs and began substance

abuse treatment again. Moser testified that Mother completed the special needs

parenting classes and joined a support group for parents of children with autism,

required under the plan. She testified that Mother was consistent with her visitation

with the boys for the most part, and she brought food, drinks, and art projects to keep

the boys entertained for the four-hour visits. Moser observed that Mother was loving

and bonded with the children during her visits.

      Moser testified that although A.R. is still primarily nonverbal, his verbal skills

have improved a lot since he has been in his foster placement. He is now able to read

books, answer “yes” and “no,” and say his name. She testified that Mother was

unhappy and worried for K.J.B.’s safety when he was placed with his father because

she felt that his needs would not be met.

                                            13
      Moser testified that the foster parent has not expressed an interest in adopting

A.R. She agreed that it would be challenging to find an adoptive home for A.R. but

stated that the Department recently sent out a legal broadcast for A.R. and intended

to send out a nationwide broadcast for both siblings so they could remain together.

Moser testified that the Department had received one home study, but she did not

know the status of that study. Moser also testified that she received information that

a teacher at K.J.B.’s school expressed interest in adopting both boys.

      Moser testified that when A.R. came into the Department’s care, he was a

“wild” child and ran outside any time that a door opened. She testified that, during

one of her visits, A.R. darted outside and Mother could not handle his behavior.

When A.R. was placed in his first foster home, he was entirely non-verbal, flung

things across the room, threw tantrums, hit himself and tried to strike adults, broke

things, and ate with his hands. Moser testified that after A.R. was placed in his first

foster home, his behavior drastically changed and he flourished in the placement.

      Moser testified that at the time K.J.B. came into the Department’s care, he

was being neglected educationally and was very behind in school. Moser stated that

Mother was so overwhelmed trying to handle A.R. that she was unable to care for

K.J.B. Moser testified that at the time of the children’s removal, Mother was living

with her boyfriend at his apartment. Mother and her boyfriend had a domestic

violence disturbance that prompted Mother and the children to move out of her

                                          14
boyfriend’s apartment. The boyfriend later informed the Department that Mother

had returned to prostitution, and he sent the Department sexually explicit photos of

Mother that she had posted on a website. Moser stated that Mother was charged with

prostitution for the third time. She testified that Mother’s conduct posed a danger to

the children because it would expose them to strangers in their home and put them

at risk of sexual abuse.

      Moser testified that the boys are currently in a loving foster home with parents

who are preschool teachers and own a daycare. She stated that while the foster

placement informed her that they are not seeking adoption they told the Department

that they will keep the boys as long as necessary. She stated that when she learned

of Mother’s allegation that A.R. was being starved, she went to the foster home and

observed that it was full of food and toys and that A.R. was acting normally. During

her visit, Moser read a book with A.R., and he sang “Frozen” on a karaoke machine

and played archery outside. She testified that A.R. is learning sign language as well

as his colors, letters, and numbers.

      The foster mother testified that A.R. came into her home in February 2022

and K.J.B. was placed with her in July 2022. When A.R. was initially placed with

her, he was rambunctious and impulsive. She stated that A.R. was currently

receiving occupational therapy, speech therapy, and play therapy. She stated that

since A.R. has been in her home, she has noticed a big difference in his conduct. She

                                         15
stated that he learns something new every day. She testified that A.R. is sweet and

that he is still impulsive but not as much as when he was first placed with her. The

foster mother saw Mother’s posts of A.R. on Facebook and felt that they were not

accurate. She stated that A.R. loves to eat, and that he loves bananas, rice, and beans,

but that he does not like bread. She testified that K.J.B. is doing well in school and

his grades are improving. She stated that although she does not plan to adopt K.J.B.

and A.R., they can stay with her for as long as necessary until the Department is able

to find an adoptive placement for the boys. The foster mother stated that Mother has

thanked her numerous times for taking such good care of K.J.B. and A.R. and has

asked her on multiple occasions if she would adopt them. The foster mother said she

would not have any issue with Mother staying in communication with K.J.B. and

A.R. after their cases concluded.

      On December 30, 2022, the trial court signed a final decree of termination in

Cause No. 2021-00968J, finding that clear and convincing evidence existed to

support a finding under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), and

(O), and that termination of Mother’s parental rights to K.J.B. was in the best

interests of the child.1 On December 30, 2022, the trial court signed a final decree of

termination in Cause No. 2021-00883J, finding that clear and convincing evidence

1
      The trial court also terminated K.J.B.’s father’s parental rights pursuant to Section
      161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O) and found that termination was in the child’s best interest.

                                           16
existed to support a finding under subsections Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and

(O), and that termination of Mother’s parental rights to A.R. was in the best interests

of the child.2 These appeals followed.

                               Best Interest of the Child

        In her sole issue on appeal, Mother contends that the evidence is factually

insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that termination of her parental rights

is in the best interests of K.J.B. and A.R.3

A.      Standard of Review

        In a case to terminate parental rights under Texas Family Code Section

161.001, the Department must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1)

the parent committed one or more of the enumerated acts or omissions justifying

termination and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.001(b). The Department must prove both elements—a statutorily prescribed

predicate finding and that termination is in the child’s best interest—by clear and

convincing evidence. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b); see In re E.N.C., 384

S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012). The Family Code defines “clear and convincing

    2
        The court terminated A.R.’s father’s parental rights under Family Code Section
        161.002 and found that termination was in the child’s best interest.
3
        Mother does not challenge on appeal the trial court’s findings that clear and
        convincing evidence existed to support the predicate grounds for termination of her
        parental rights to K.J.B. and A.R. under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O).
                                            17
evidence” as “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the

trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be

established.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 101.007.

      When assessing the factual sufficiency of the evidence in a termination

proceeding, we consider the entire record, including disputed evidence. In re J.O.A.,

283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009). The evidence is factually insufficient if, in light

of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have

resolved in favor of the finding is so significant that the factfinder could not

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction. Id. We give due deference to the

factfinder’s findings, and we cannot substitute our own judgment for that of the

factfinder. See In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). The fact finder is the

sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. See id. at 109.

B.    Applicable Law

      Protection of the best interest of the child is the primary focus of the

termination proceeding in the trial court and our appellate review. See In re A.V.,

113 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2003). A parent’s right to “the companionship, care,

custody, and management” of his or her child is a constitutional interest “far more

precious than any property right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59 (1982);

see In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003). Accordingly, we strictly scrutinize

                                           18
termination proceedings and strictly construe the involuntary termination statutes in

favor of the parent. Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985).

      There is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by

keeping the child with the child’s natural parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116

(Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2012, no pet.). Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment

is also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a).

      Courts may consider the following non-exclusive factors in reviewing the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the best interest finding:

      (1) the desires of the child;

      (2) the present and future physical and emotional needs of the child;

      (3) the present and future emotional and physical danger to the child;

      (4) the parental abilities of the persons seeking custody;

      (5) the programs available to assist those persons seeking custody in
      promoting the best interest of the child;

      (6) the plans for the child by the individuals or agency seeking custody;

      (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement;

      (8) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing parent-
      child relationship is not appropriate; and

      (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions.

                                          19
      Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors are not

exhaustive, and evidence is not required on all of them to support a finding that

terminating a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest. Id.; In re D.R.A., 374

S.W.3d at 533.

      In addition, the Texas Family Code sets out factors to be considered in

evaluating the parent’s willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe

environment, including: the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities;

whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child’s family or others who

have access to the child’s home; the willingness and ability of the child’s family to

seek out, accept, and complete counseling services and to cooperate with and

facilitate an appropriate agency’s close supervision; the willingness and ability of

the child’s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes within a

reasonable period of time; whether the child’s family demonstrates adequate

parenting skills, including providing the child with minimally adequate health and

nutritional care, a safe physical home environment, protection from repeated

exposure to violence even though the violence may not be directed at the child, and

an understanding of the child’s needs and capabilities. TEX. FAM. CODE §

263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116.

                                         20
C.    Analysis

      Mother argues that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the trial

court’s findings that termination of her parental rights was in K.J.B.’s and A.R.’s

best interests. She argues that there was no evidence or testimony elicited showing

that their current foster placement wished to adopt the children or that the children

were adoptable.

      1.     Placement Plans

      While evidence of placement plans and adoption are certainly relevant to a

best interest analysis, a lack of evidence about definitive plans for permanent

placement and adoption cannot be the dispositive factor. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17,

28 (Tex. 2002). Otherwise, best interest determinations would regularly be subject

to reversal on the sole basis that an adoptive family cannot yet be located. Id.

Instead, we ask whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a

firm conviction or belief that termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s best

interest—even if the agency is unable to identify with precision the child’s future

home environment. See id.

      Here, although the foster parent testified that she did not intend to adopt

K.J.B. and A.R., she testified that the boys could remain in their foster placement

with her for as long as necessary while the Department sought a permanent

placement for them. Moser testified that the boys are currently in a loving foster

                                          21
home where all their needs are being met and that the foster parents are preschool

teachers and own a daycare. Moser testified that the Department had sent out a legal

broadcast for A.R. and that it intended to send out a nationwide broadcast for both

siblings so they could remain together. She testified that the Department had already

received one home study although she did not know the status of that study. She had

also recently learned that a teacher at K.J.B.’s school expressed interest in adopting

both boys. This factor does not weigh against termination.

      2.     Children’s Needs and Parental Abilities of Those Seeking Custody

      In addition to the evidence showing that K.J.B.’s and A.R.’s foster placement

was meeting all their needs—medical, emotional, psychological, and nutritional—

the evidence showed that the boys were thriving in their current foster placement.

      Moser testified that when K.J.B. came into the Department’s care, he was

being neglected educationally and was very behind in school. Moser stated that

Mother was so overwhelmed trying to handle A.R. that she was unable to care for

K.J.B. K.J.B.’s foster mother testified that since his placement with her, he is doing

well in school and his grades are improving.

      Regarding A.R., the evidence showed that he had “severe to profound

intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder with marked to profound

deficits in adaptive functioning in one or more areas: communication, social

participation and independent living across multiple environments.” A.R.’s

                                         22
cognitive functioning appeared “to be at or below the moderate intellectual range

resulting in severe and profound deficits in comprehension, achievement, and

adaptive functioning,” and he was nonverbal. A.R. was removed and placed in the

Department’s care when he was five years old after police officers found him

wandering along the feeder road of Highway 290, covered in hives, and dressed in a

soiled diaper. A.R. is nonverbal and was unable to tell the officers who his mother

was or where he lived. When the officers located Mother, she appeared to be under

the influence of drugs or alcohol and later tested positive for methamphetamines.

      Moser testified that when A.R. came into the Department’s care, he was a

“wild” child who ran the moment a door opened. When A.R. was placed in his first

foster home, he was entirely nonverbal, flung things across the room, threw

tantrums, hit himself and tried to strike adults, broke things, and ate with his hands.

Moser testified that after A.R. was placed in his first foster home, his behavior

drastically changed and that he was flourishing in the placement. A.R. was learning

sign language as well as his colors, letters, and numbers. A.R. was receiving

occupational therapy, speech therapy, and play therapy in his foster placement.

      In addition to the evidence above, we may consider the parent’s past

performance as a parent in evaluating her present abilities to provide for the child.

See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28. Although evidence of past misconduct or neglect

alone may not be sufficient to show present unfitness, a factfinder may measure a

                                          23
parent’s future conduct by her past conduct indicating that it is in a child’s best

interest to terminate her parental rights. See In re A.N.D., No. 02-12-00394-CV,

2013 WL 362753, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Here, the record showed that another child, J.S.R., was removed after Mother tested

positive for crack cocaine during her pregnancy. Her parental rights were terminated

and J.S.R. was later adopted. See In re N.E., No. 01-22-00739-CV, 2023 WL

2530197, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 16, 2023, pet. denied) (mem.

op.) (concluding evidence showing that mother’s parental rights were previously

terminated to another child based on trial court’s finding, among others, that Mother

had engaged in conduct which endangered physical or emotional well-being of child

was past conduct indicating termination was in child’s best interest). These factors

weigh in favor of termination. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372; TEX. FAM. CODE §

263.307(b).

      3.      Present and Future Emotional and Physical Danger to Children
              and Stability of Home

      A parent’s past conduct is probative of her future conduct when evaluating

the child’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2013, no pet.). A fact finder may infer that past conduct endangering the

well-being of a child may recur in the future if the child is returned to the parent

when assessing the best interest of the child. In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.).

                                         24
      The evidence showed that Mother had an extensive history with the

Department involving repeated reports of abuse and neglect because of her drug use.

The Department received reports in 2009, 2011, and two reports in 2014, alleging

Mother physically abused and neglected previous children, as well as K.J.B.,

because of her drug use. In 2009, Mother and one of her children tested positive for

barbiturates and Mother tested positive for opiates, and Mother went to jail as a

result. In 2011, Mother used cocaine while pregnant with another child which

resulted in the child being removed and her parental rights being terminated. In 2014,

Mother tested positive for cocaine while pregnant with K.J.B. One month later, the

Department received a report that Mother was holding K.J.B. during a domestic

violence incident involving her boyfriend. Mother later tested positive for drugs in

May 2022 after she was admitted to a substance abuse treatment center. She also

failed to show up for monthly drug testing from June through November 2022. Given

her history of substance use, and her positive result in May 2022, the trial court could

have concluded that the reason she regularly failed to appear for drug testing in the

months leading up to trial was that she was continuing to use illegal drugs. See In re

J.H.G., No. 01-16-01006-CV, 2017 WL 2378141, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] June 1, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that parent’s refusal to submit

to drug testing may be treated as if parent would have been positive for illegal drugs).

The evidence also showed that Mother was charged with “prostitution w/3rd or

                                          25
more” in October 2022, and she did not have a stable home or employment as of

November 2022, the month before trial.

      The evidence of Mother’s drug use, criminal activity, and instability are

indicative of the present and future physical and emotional dangers posed to both

children. See In re Z.H., No. 14-19-00061-CV, 2019 WL 2632015, at *6 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering

parent’s drug use in the context of evaluating the present and future emotional and

physical danger to the child); In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d 822, 834–35 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (holding that parent’s past pattern of drug use

weighed in favor of finding that termination was in child’s best interest under

several Holley factors, and was relevant to his parenting abilities, stability of home

he would provide, emotional and physical needs of his child, and emotional and

physical danger in which child would be placed); In re E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d 251,

266 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (noting factfinder can give

“great weight” to “significant factor” of drug-related conduct); In re O.N.H., 401

S.W.3d at 684 (stating parent’s past conduct was probative of his future conduct

when evaluating child’s best interest); see also In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d at 471

(stating court may infer that past endangering conduct may recur if child was

returned for purposes of determining whether termination is in child’s best interest).

                                         26
These factors weigh in favor of termination. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372; TEX.

FAM. CODE § 263.307(b).

      In view of the entire record, we conclude that the disputed evidence is not so

significant as to prevent the trial court from forming a firm belief or conviction that

termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of K.J.B. and A.R. See

In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345. We overrule Mother’s sole issue in K.J.B.’s and

A.R.’s cases.

                                     Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s final decrees of termination in both cases.

                                                            Amparo Guerra
                                                            Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Farris and Guerra.

                                          27