Court Opinion

ID: 9377203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 11:08:01.756361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.604370
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-22-00621-CV

                                          J. C., Appellant

                                                 v.

                Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

                FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY
           NO. 51642, THE HONORABLE CHERYLL MABRAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant J.C. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her

parental rights to her son “Charles,” who was born in October 2019 and was about

two-and-a-half years old at the time of the de novo hearing in June 2022. 1 Mother challenges the

legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings on best interest and

of statutory grounds for termination. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2). We

affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

       1  For the child’s privacy, we will refer to him by an alias and to his family members by
their relationships to him. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Charles’s father’s rights were also
terminated, but although he filed a notice of appeal, he later filed a motion to dismiss explaining
he did not wish to proceed.
                       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

               According to a November 2020 affidavit filed by the Texas Department of Family

and Protective Services, Mother had been involved with the Department in the past; her parental

rights to her two older children had been terminated; and the present case began after Mother

tested positive for methamphetamine. 2 In December 2020, it filed an amended petition seeking

conservatorship, attaching another affidavit describing its repeated unsuccessful efforts to find

Mother and Charles and explaining that Charles was eventually located with Mother when she

was arrested on a warrant during a traffic stop. Charles was taken into the Department’s care

under an emergency order signed December 7, 2020. A five-day hearing before an associate

judge began in December 2021 and concluded in May 2022, 3 followed by a June 2022 de novo

hearing in which the court took judicial notice of the evidence from the associate-judge hearing.

               Department caseworker Kyle Ricketson testified in the first two days of the

hearing. He explained that the Department had conducted prior investigations, that Mother had

“previously had a family based services case,” that the Department filed this case in December

2020 after Mother tested positive for methamphetamines, and that before seeking removal, the

Department searched for the child for thirty to forty-five days.         Charles was taken into

Department care when Mother was arrested on a warrant after a traffic stop, and Mother and

Charles both tested positive for methamphetamine in hair-follicle tests administered early in the

proceeding.   Mother’s service plan required her to take random drug tests; complete a

       2  The Department did not introduce its petitions or affidavits into evidence, although the
associate judge did take judicial notice of all its orders and the docket sheet. We refer to those
documents here only to the extent necessary to understand the context and timeline of the case.
       3 The hearing before the associate judge took place on December 7, 2021, February 15,
2022, April 19, 2022, May 3, 2022, and May 19, 2022.
                                                2
psychological evaluation; engage in therapy that included parenting training; complete a

parenting class; discontinue contact with “dangerous or known criminals that are engaging in

illegal or dangerous activity”; and obtain and maintain stable housing.

               Ricketson testified in February that he had obtained a copy of an earlier

psychological evaluation conducted through drug court but that mother had not completed an

evaluation for the Department. Mother initially engaged in therapy and largely took drug tests as

requested, and except for the initial positive hair-strand test and a March 2021 urinalysis (UA)

that was positive for morphine, her other UAs were negative; Mother claimed not to have used

morphine but did not provide any medications or other explanations for the positive result.

Mother had missed several drug tests, not all of which were requested while she was

incarcerated; she was unsuccessfully discontinued from a drug-court program; and she was

dropped by her therapist in April 2021 “[d]ue to her inability to trust and appropriately

participate within the service.”

               Ricketson testified that Mother had last seen Charles in July 2021. Before that,

she had been seeing Charles regularly at visitations, but in May or June 2021, Mother’s

supervision through drug court was revoked “due to continued engagement with dangerous and

illegal activities.” She was released from jail in mid-December 2021 and gave birth to a

daughter, “Opal,” on December 28, 2021. She had restarted drug testing after her release and

had started therapy with a new provider in early February. Ricketson had visited a residence

where Mother claimed to live but was unable to confirm that she was actually living there

because she could never meet him at the home to confirm her residence. Mother claimed to be

employed but had not provided any proof of employment, and Ricketson had not “successfully

spoken to anybody at the travel center where she claims to [work].”

                                                3
               Ricketson agreed that Mother had largely been working her service plan since

being released from jail in December 2021, other than when she was at the hospital after giving

birth. However, he had concerns about allegations of physical violence with her ex-boyfriend,

“Henry,” explaining that when Mother was nine months pregnant with Opal, an incident

occurred in which both Mother and Henry accused each other of assault, with Henry alleging she

had tried “to run him over with a car.” Henry had also reported to the Department that Mother is

not a suitable parent, that she would subject a child to an environment that “would be dangerous

and detrimental to his health,” and that she continued to associate with inappropriate individuals

who are drug users.      Ricketson believed Mother had lied to the Department about “the

involvement of dangerous activities and inappropriate activities with individuals and places that

would be looked at as inappropriate.”

               Ricketson testified that Mother’s “reoffending and getting arrested” caused

instability for Charles and “a dangerous and chaotic environment for the child, especially one of

such a vulnerable age. You’re not there to take care of the child or the child is shuffled around.”

He believed termination was in Charles’s best interest because the child “needs a safe and

healthy, functioning environment for him to thrive and grow in. And unfortunately I see the

struggle [Mother] has with being able to provide that and that causes concern.” Charles was

“doing awesome” in his foster home, which is meeting his needs, and is bonded with the family

members. Ricketson testified that Charles is “very engaged, very comfortable, confident with”

his foster family and that the placement is “in it for the long haul” and hopes to adopt him.

               Counselor Deborah Taber testified that she first worked with Mother in a 2020

protective-parenting class, and that in January 2021, Mother was referred to her for individual

counseling and parenting classes in the present case. They started therapy in February 2021, but

                                                 4
Mother was unsuccessfully discharged because she had missed three sessions or “was always in

the midst of something [that] was going on that she couldn’t come or couldn’t finish a session,

couldn’t complete it.” Taber discharged Mother after Mother claimed she had gotten a last-

minute call requiring her to attend a probation meeting, but the probation officer said that the

meeting had “been set for some—for at least two or three weeks.” Taber said that Mother “had

not been honest with me in telling me that it was last minute, and so I did not—I didn’t want to

continue with her.”    Taber believed “truthfulness is an issue” for Mother, who had given

inconsistent explanations about whether she was in a relationship and with whom, and said that

“there was just a lot of chaos, a lot of my wondering how really honest she was.”

               Taber testified that Mother had addressed many of the same issues a year earlier

in the parenting class—“about being around people that were using drugs, about choosing men,

about domestic violence, you know, just all of that. And so for her then to be right back in it and

not a year later, it just made me wonder how really honest she was about working on herself.”

Asked whether she saw any patterns in Mother’s behavior, Taber answered:

       Well, there just seems to be a lot of chaos and an inability to have any kind of
       safety—a safe environment. Like there’s just been an upheaval since 2020
       anyway since I’ve known of her. You know, there was probably four or five at
       least pretty significant upheavals, you know. She was in a relationship . . . and
       then that—she split up from that. And then she got into trouble after that . . . went
       to jail in December, it was 2020. And then . . . getting beat up by these two, had
       another relationship with somebody who was in a—in drug court with her, and
       then was in this other relationship with this man who had lost his wife and who
       also had meth issues. . . . [A]nd then, of course, having her son removed and—so
       there was just a lot going on in a short period of time, I mean, within, probably—
       we’re talking about one year.

Taber noted that Mother “had just come off of a family-based services case, so she had been in

the system probably a good nine months to a year” before she started to see Taber in this case.

                                                5
Mother admitted to Taber that she had used methamphetamines, and although “whenever there’s

methamphetamines involved, there’s always neglect,” Mother never acknowledged having

endangered Charles and instead stated “that she knew that she was a good mother and that

nobody could tell her otherwise.” Taber testified that Mother had difficulty making good

choices about her partners—she had been in relationships with men who had stalked her, beaten

her up, and used methamphetamines. Taber said that although Mother acknowledged making

poor choices, those acknowledgements “didn’t fit up with . . . her decision-making,” and she kept

choosing partners with similar issues.      Taber believed that Mother had some “narcissistic

personality disorder traits,” which make it difficult for her to identify internal problems and work

on them. Such traits can also have a connection to a lack of truthfulness, Taber said, adding that

she thought that “somebody who’s truly narcissistic may not even realize or may not even be

willing to admit that what they’re saying is not true,” that they might “see it as a truthful

statement when it really isn’t.” She said that “it’s their reality” and that “[w]ith narcissistic

personality traits, you definitely have to worry about truthfulness.”

               Probation officer Christina Meza supervised Mother in 2019 for several months

while she was on bond after being arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Mother was

pregnant with Charles at the time, and Meza said that “there were concerns with her consuming

methamphetamine during her pregnancy. So we had to ask the Judge to revoke her bond a

couple of times just to keep her from consuming and keeping the baby safe.” Meza testified that

Mother tested positive for drugs and continued to associate with people who were engaged in

criminal conduct and using drugs. Mother was eventually placed on probation for four years, but

her probation was revoked in 2021 after she was arrested for burglary of a habitation and was

“unsuccessfully discharged from drug court.”

                                                 6
               In April, therapist Dawana Flowers testified that she had met with Mother seven

times since starting to work with her in February. Mother was consistently in “crisis mode” and

“has been in a state of chaos every time she comes.” Flowers had been working with Mother on

“deescalating” and putting things in perspective and testified that although Mother has coping

skills, she is “just all over the place right now just because of how life is right now for her.”

Mother had been dealing with issues related to housing—“there was some confusion” with one

of Mother’s former boyfriends about whether Mother was allowed to be in the residence—and

she had “just had an accident with her car.” Flowers did not have enough information to opine

whether Mother could safely care for Charles; she had not seen anything to give her concerns

about Mother maintaining her parental rights to Charles; but she understood the concerns that

had been raised about Mother’s parenting and did not know what had led to the Department

seeking to terminate her rights. Mother had not yet successfully completed individual therapy

and had not yet started to work on the Department-required parenting skills. Flowers did not

believe that any delay in starting therapy was Mother’s fault, and when she was asked if it would

be possible to address all of Mother’s issues and needs by June, she answered, “If we can

minimize the drama, yes. We can do some protective parenting with her if we can get the drama

minimized, but I don’t know at this point if it’s enough time to do that.”

               In the May hearing, Flowers testified that Mother had reported that she had

borderline personality disorder. Flowers testified that the disorder can affect parenting skills,

saying, “It depends on the level of the severity of the diagnosis which I don’t really know how

severe it is for [Mother].” She had concerns about “the compulsive behaviors that [Mother] has

already exhibited throughout this case,”:      “making kind of irrational decisions, impulsive

decisions, not thinking things thoroughly out, reacting, passive-aggressive personality types

                                                 7
come out at that time. It’s kind of sometimes a fight-or-flight kind of mode type of personality,

and some quick response without sometimes thinking, and that can put a child at risk.” Flowers

was asked why her testimony had changed so “drastically” since the last hearing, despite having

only one additional counseling session with Mother, and Flowers answered that after Mother

disclosed her personality disorder, Flowers “looked back” and did some research on the

diagnosis, determining that the diagnosis made sense based on what Mother had told her. On the

Department’s request, Flowers wrote a letter describing her concerns about Opal remaining in

Mother’s care.     Flowers expressed concerns about Mother’s borderline personality disorder

because Mother had “exhibited a number of the traits associated with this condition,” which “has

an effect on how a person thinks and feels about themselves and others, resulting in difficulties

with daily functioning.” She said that Mother participated in counseling “in a frightened frame

of mind as a result of continuing terrible experiences in her life” and was “engaging in impulsive

and self-destructive behavior.” Flowers was concerned that Mother was not on prescription

medication, especially given her “history with Child Protective Services,” and was “uncertain if

[Mother] will be able to provide long-term protective parenting to the minor child in her care.”

                Flowers testified that Mother has “unmeasurable” tenacity and shows a

willingness to try to improve. Mother had “had a lot of obstacles just since I’ve met her,” and

“it’s always a heightened emotion state, and so to get through that and to navigate that and do

everyday life, I have to give her . . . props for that. It’s hard.”

                Henry testified that he met Mother in October 2021 and went out with her for two

weeks in December 2021. At the end of the relationship, Mother alleged that Henry had

assaulted her, but Henry testified that the case had been dismissed after he provided text

messages showing that Mother “had tried to blackmail” him into recanting reports he had made

                                                    8
to the Department that had “hurt her case.” Henry said he had told Ricketson that Mother, who

was pregnant with Opal, had gone to a house that “was not an ideal place” for an infant; that she

was spending time with “disreputable” people; and that she was driving with a suspended license

and no insurance. Henry admitted that he had been arrested “[q]uite a few times” and said he did

not keep track of how often—“That’s my past, not my future.” He had been incarcerated at least

three times for tampering with evidence, burglary of a building, and burglary of a habitation.

               Henry claimed that Mother had been violent towards him on one occasion and

that “[v]ery little” of what she said “was the truth.” He testified about the mobile home in which

she claimed to live and had set up a nursery, alleging that Mother had planned to live with him

instead and that “because she was trying to outsmart CPS, she was telling CPS that she was

living there and went to set the room up so that she had a place to show for CPS when they came

to do the home visits.” He alleged that while he was in jail, Mother had taken money from his

bank account and had moved into the house he had arranged to rent, changing papers to put her

name on them instead of his and leading the homeowner to believe that she and Henry would

live together once he was released from jail. He said she had not been evicted because she had

been harassing and intimidating the homeowner. Asked whether he had concerns about her as a

mother, Henry answered, “I have not had enough of a personal relationship or been involved

with her enough to know how she is as a mother. I just know that she takes unnecessary risks,

and she’s willing to put herself in that position. She’s willing to put her child in that position.”

               Mary Beth Read, the child’s Court Appointed Special Advocates volunteer

(CASA), testified that she was initially optimistic about reunification because Mother was

working with Taber, who has “always done such a good job with the mothers and given them

really nice avenues to get back towards their children.” She said that Mother had kept up regular

                                                  9
visitations and contact with Charles “except for when she was incarcerated and missed a drug

test,” but that the last visitation was in March 2021.

                Read did not believe Mother had demonstrated an ability to provide Charles with

a safe environment and recommended that Mother’s rights be terminated. She acknowledged

that Mother was “trying” but asserted that Mother continues to engage in dangerous behavior.

Read also said that Mother has “had a year and a half, and she’s done a lot here recently, but

she’s had a year and a half.” Read noted that Mother has had several residences during the case,

had been in jail for “most of the case” due to her own actions that led to her arrest, and has had

several jobs, saying, “[S]he’s good at getting employed, but it—it changes a lot.” Read believed

that the instability in Mother’s life would negatively affect Charles. Read was asked about the

condition of Mother’s residence. She said that there were stains on the floor near the water

heater, a hole in the kitchen floor, and “dead mice around.” Read also believed “you almost need

an inspection before you say, okay, this is okay to live in.” She knew Mother had “done a lot of

work, but who knows if the electricity is good, if . . . it’s to code.”

                Read said she tries “to be cautious” with Mother because of reports alleging that

Mother had beaten up someone who tried to report her to CPS and has “brass knuckles” and

because of Mother’s parents’ claim that she brought “a Glock” to their house. Read said that she

could not disclose Charles’s foster family’s “name or location due to safety issues.” Read

testified that the foster family wanted to have their names and location sealed and “wants

protection” because “they don’t want to be pursued.” When Read was first assigned to the case

after Charles’s removal, she called the family that had adopted Mother’s two older children.

However, that family “backed away from placement if [Mother] was going to have any inkling

of who they were. They just completely dropped the whole idea.”

                                                   10
               Read testified that a report from the beginning of the case said that Charles was

“very delayed,” and Mother told Read that Charles, who was slightly older than a year, “didn’t

even know how to use his teeth.” He “wouldn’t focus on a ball,” he “didn’t know where his—

his nose and toes were,” and he “was just kind of a zombie,” although Reed conceded that

“maybe it was from the long trip he had had, but it was—it was very concerning for a while.” At

the time of the final hearing, Charles was doing very well in his foster home, where he had been

for almost a year, and was “completely assimilated” and “completely embraced.” He recently

“started having some regression with his emotional regulation,” so he and the family had started

“trust-based rehab” therapy to address those issues. The family had educated themselves about

the therapy and were committed to it, and the parents reported that Charles is making progress,

although he “definitely has some issues with his sensory sensitivity.” Read testified that the

foster parents are “completely willing” to do whatever Charles needs and that he is nurtured and

loved in the foster home and “he’s progressing. He’s growing up.” Read said, “I can’t say . . .

too much good about them because they are doing so much—anything they can to help.” The

foster family told Read “that [Charles] is the most sensitive child that they have,” and Read

agreed: “He’s always been so sensitive, and . . . I think he needs extra care right now.”

               In the May 16 hearing, Raven Torres testified that she had become Mother’s

Department caseworker in March 2022, when the case was transferred from Ricketson. Torres

testified that Mother had completed a protective parenting class; was “scheduled to be

discharged from her individual counselor, so therefore that’s not completed”; had been

“previously discharged from her first assigned counselor”; had completed a drug assessment and

a psychological evaluation; and had established psychiatric care “in the last week.” Torres also

acknowledged that Mother had bought a self-help book to work on and learn about her

                                                11
borderline personality disorder, saying, “I do believe that that is great on her for having done

that. However, that does not substitute for the establishment of medication management and

regular psychiatric care with a provider.” Although Mother was in custody for part of the case’s

pendency, Torres noted that the case had been open since 2020, that Ricketson had worked with

Mother to give her information to start psychiatric care, and that although Mother had a

psychiatrist referral “set for her to go to” as early as March 2022, she “just had not reached out to

secure those appointments until just about last week.”           Torres testified about Mother’s

psychological evaluation and her diagnoses of borderline personality; posttraumatic stress

disorder (PTSD); generalized anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder; severe amphetamine-

type substance abuse disorder in reported remission; and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD).      She also stated that Mother’s psychiatric evaluation had diagnosed her with

depression and PTSD.

               Torres said Mother had completed “a few service requests,” but “in terms of our

evaluation it’s more so of an application of the skills learned from these services, and at this time

I don’t believe that those have been implemented.” She had had problems with Mother being

untruthful but claiming miscommunication, and she said Mother’s lack of truthfulness “poses a

serious safety concern with returning the child to the home.” Torres also had concerns about the

stability of Mother’s housing situation because “[t]here’s a lot of chaos going on with that”—

Torres had not received a copy of a lease, and Mother’s and her landlord’s stories “don’t ever

seem to corroborate.” Torres further testified that the Department had concerns about the men

Mother dated, several of whom “have extensive criminal histories.” Mother claimed that the

men are coworkers or friends, but Torres noted that photographs posted online “did not

corroborate with her story.”     Torres did not believe Mother had “exhibited any protective

                                                 12
parenting skills at this time” and believed that it was in Charles’s best interest to stay in his

current placement and for Mother’s rights to be terminated.

               Mother’s father (“Grandfather”) testified that the words “chaos, drama,

recklessness” describe Mother “completely” and that she is “very impulsive” and irrational. He

agreed that “[e]verything just seems to turn to crisis.” Grandfather testified that Mother had been

difficult since before she was five years old and that she was diagnosed with ADHD and placed

on medication when she was in kindergarten. A “complete psychological evaluation” conducted

when she was seven determined that she did not have ADHD but instead had “personality

disorders. They didn’t know exactly what it was going to lead to. They said she was going to be

a struggle and that she needed extreme structure.” Grandfather said that Mother’s “personality is

awesome,” that she is very likeable, and that everybody wants to help her, but that she continues

to get in trouble. He testified that “even in sixth grade, she was stealing, lying, fantasizing.

Just—I mean, all the things that I hear now that she’s doing.” Grandfather testified that the

family had moved several times because of work or because of Mother’s behavior, not to evade

CPS. He also said that CPS only got involved with the family one time due to a lie told by

Mother. Mother was placed in one boarding school, where she was only allowed to stay for one

school year because she was “a resource drain on the school.” The school told Grandfather, “We

love her to death, but we cannot accept her next year because she takes so many resources from

the school, and it’s not fair to the other students.” Mother “always had issues with boys and

following the rules,” and when she moved back in with the family in high school, “all hell broke

loose.” She kept running away and getting in trouble with the police and was arrested after she

hit her stepmother. Mother was diagnosed as bipolar and started on medication, but she again

started misbehaving, eventually falsely accusing her stepmother of abusing her, which resulted in

                                                13
her stepmother’s arrest. At that point, Grandfather kicked seventeen-year-old Mother out of the

house. Grandfather insisted that he and his wife had never abused Mother and that the only

person who had been abusive was Mother.

               Grandfather did not think Mother was “ever going to change,” explaining that she

had tried to get help and had tried counseling but “never stays on her medicine. She—she just—

she self-medicates. She hangs around with bad people.” He noted that the present trial had been

extended for months, saying, “[S]he’s drug this trial out and it’s our fault. . . . It’s the same thing

I’ve heard all her life. It’s an excuse. Everybody elses’ fault, not mine.” He said that the trial

was “like a big flashback” because the case “keeps being drug out, and the manipulation

continues.” He testified that it “just breaks my heart that we’re having to continue to do this”

when “we’ve got this wonderful family that’s taking care of [Charles],” saying that “they’re

awesome people, and they want to take care of [Charles]. They want to raise [Charles], and yet

we’re still stuck in this, and look at what she’s doing to [Opal].”

               Grandfather believed that Mother could “[a]bsolutely not” provide a safe home

for a child, saying that she had “proven that time and time again. She’s already had two taken.

Now [Charles]. That’s the third, and . . . I can’t even believe that they’d even allow her to

continue with [Opal].” He believed it was in Charles’s best interest for him to stay in his current

placement, saying that they “are a very loving family” and that he and his wife had been meeting

with them monthly and “we felt very comfortable right from the start.”

               Mother testified that the subject case was opened in 2020 when she tested positive

for methamphetamine while on bond for a drug possession charge. Mother admitted that she had

used methamphetamine but insisted she never used drugs while Charles was with her. She also

insisted that she never cared for him while still feeling the effects of any drugs. She agreed that

                                                  14
she should never have used methamphetamine, that “meth endangers children,” and that she had

endangered Charles by using methamphetamine, but she did not believe she was currently

endangering her child, saying she had “been off meth” after making a mistake. Mother agreed

that she had kept Charles away from the Department, asserting that the Department was not

trying “to see if he was okay” and that she “knew they were coming to take him.”

                Mother testified that she had not used “any substance since 2020” and that “the

last time I used was the week that I failed that drug test for the probation department in 2020.”

She testified that the December 2020 hair-follicle test that was positive for methamphetamine

showed use four to six months earlier, “not recent use,” and that the March 2021 test that was

positive for morphine was taken after she was in the hospital after being assaulted—“I got beat

up, and I believe—because they did give me pain meds in the hospital . . . so that would explain

that.” Mother was asked about “at least five missed drug tests” and said “[t]hat there were two

or three of them that [Ricketson] allowed me to test the next day because of a work situation and

scheduling”; another was “the referral [that] was never sent in on time”; and two others were

while she was incarcerated in 2021. Asked about a March 2022 nailbed test that was positive for

methamphetamine, 4 Mother said, “I never received those results directly. So I do not believe

that those were the results of my nailbed, no, I do not.” She said that she had looked at the levels

in her December 2020 hair follicle test, which showed levels “at 4,000” from October 2020,

when she “actually using meth.” The nailbed test showed “levels of 17,000,” and Mother said,

“To me that seems very extreme. I know nailbeds are said to have gone back—they can go back

years, and what I’m being told is that that level would mean that I used several times a day every

single day, and that is ridiculous.” She insisted that she had “not used any substances at all” and

       4   The Department did not introduce records of Mother’s drug test results into evidence.
                                                15
had not “even been around somebody who could be using who could be possibly sweating it

off,” concluding that “it is literally impossible for my nailbed to come back with any of those

levels.” Mother testified, “I am currently sober, and it’s an everyday battle, but I am in support

groups. I do have a sponsor, and I am working my [Narcotics Anonymous] program.”

               Mother was put on probation for a drug charge in December 2020 and

acknowledged that one of her probation requirements was to avoid “people of disreputable

characters or criminal histories.” However, Mother said, “That’s—that’s literally every single

person I know.” Mother noted that she had intended to pursue a welding certification program

but left it because the Department raised concerns about her “hanging out with more criminals”

and the welding company is a “second-chance employer,” so everyone who works there,

including the owners, are convicted felons.

               Mother testified that she had only been involved with two men who had “bad

histories”—“Robert” and Henry. She said that Robert was only abusive at the end of their

relationship when she confronted him about drug use he had been hiding and that she “left him

immediately. Did not go back to that relationship.” Henry, she said, lied to her about his

criminal background, and when she confronted him about it after they had been dating for two

weeks, he made excuses that did not make sense. Mother said that she separated from him and

immediately told her lawyer and Ricketson about her concerns. However, Henry “would not

leave [her] alone” and “put a pickax through the front of [her] car” when she tried to get her

belongings and leave. Mother denied trying to blackmail Henry into retracting his statements to

Ricketson and said that Henry told her that Ricketson was lying and that Mother needed to “go

talk to the police and have his charges dropped and then he would testify to those facts.” Mother

acknowledged that she knew that a third man, Opal’s father, who was currently in jail, had “an

                                               16
extensive criminal history.” However, she said that when she met him, he was sober, on bond,

wearing an ankle monitor, and following his bond requirements. It was not until she was

incarcerated that he “started using again and messing up his life.” Mother was asked if she had a

long history of involvement “with people with criminal histories,” drug use, and domestic

violence, and “continu[ing] to make those decisions even today,” and she disagreed, saying she

had learned from her mistakes and citing as an example the fact that she left Henry “as soon as

[she] started seeing red flags, and [she] stayed gone.”

               Mother testified that she and Henry discovered the house she was currently living

in together. She said the house had been uninhabited for about six years and needed significant

work to be livable, so she had arranged for work on the plumbing and flooring, using her tax

refund money to pay for it and providing the property owner with receipts. The homeowner

initially made a verbal rent-to-own arrangement with Mother but changed his mind after Henry

started making “harassing telephone calls” to his agent. In the May hearing, Mother was asked

whether she would be surprised to hear that her landlord was about to evict her, and she

answered, “I talked to [the landlord] three days ago. That was not the case.” Mother insisted

that she had a month-to-month lease and that the only reason she might be at risk of losing her

housing was that Henry was harassing the landlord.

               Mother testified that the weekend before the hearing, someone broke into her

house and stole various items. Mother thought Henry had committed the burglary because the

items that were taken were the same items Henry alleged belonged to him, while “several

thousands of dollars’ worth of antiques that were out in the open in the house that belonged to

the homeowner” were left behind. Mother denied that she had made a fake nursery to mislead

the Department into thinking she had appropriate housing for her and Opal and claimed that she

                                                 17
had tried to call back two different Department investigators who left their cards while she was

not home but that neither “ever scheduled anything with [her].”

               Mother testified that she was physically abused by her stepmother “[e]very single

day” growing up—“[s]he would hit me, throw things at me, choke me, sit on top of my ribcage.

She would sit on top of me, straddling me, and choke me at the same time and tell me I’m going

to hell.” Mother also testified that her stepmother burned her with a cigarette and once sat her

“on top of the stove.” Mother said that her schools kept records of her injuries but that “every

time there was ever any incident or any occurrence where . . . my parents thought that they were

going to get in trouble, we left.” Mother disputed her father’s testimony, although she admitted

that when he married her stepmother, she was “very hostile” and “very hateful.” Mother said:

       I haven’t really spoken to my parents or had a relationship with my parents . . . in
       over ten years, so for—I feel like for them to sit here and say that I can’t change
       and to smirk and to just keep on thinking that I’m the same person I was 15 years
       ago or even 20 years ago ‘cause I’m 31 years old, I just feel like that’s ridiculous
       because I’ve gone through a lot in the time period, a lot, and that right there can
       change a person. I mean, I’ve gone to prison. I’ve lost two other children. I have
       gone through a meth addiction.            I’ve—I’ve gone through, you know,
       psychological issues. I’ve gone through the trauma of losing my family. I mean,
       I don’t have siblings to call. I don’t have parents to turn to. I don’t have anything
       that I see normal people everyday have. I don’t have that.

               Mother testified that she had paid for her psychiatric evaluation, provided the

summary page to Torres, and gave the Department a release form for the full evaluation. She

was diagnosed with severe anxiety, clinical depression, and “bipolar moderate,” and she testified

that the evaluating doctor believes that she has “characteristics of borderline but . . . wouldn’t say

that I am borderline at this . . . point in time.” Mother had started medication the week before the

May 16 hearing for anxiety, depression, and bipolar, and she has an as-needed medication for

panic attacks or insomnia. She had been discharged from Flowers’s services and had made
                                                 18
initial contact with a new therapist, who had given Mother “some assignments based on [her]

diagnosis” and wants Mother “to look into receiving cognitive behavior therapy.”

               Mother testified that when she was released from jail in December 2021, she

immediately contacted Ricketson and asked him “to send referrals in for whatever I needed to do

and to let me know immediately when and who and where I needed to go so that I could start on

my services.” She started working on parenting classes, therapy, and a psychological evaluation,

and spoke to Ricketson about housing assistance so she could get her own residence. Mother

also insisted that she sends her work schedule and paycheck stubs to her caseworker, her

attorney, and CASA “as soon as [she] receive[s] them.”

               Mother agreed that she had not successfully completed her service plan.

However, she disputed Taber’s testimony that Mother had “an issue with truthfulness,” stating

that she and Taber “have a long history with each other” and that she had not told Taber that she

had been hit by a boyfriend because it was embarrassing. Mother said it was “ridiculous” for

Taber to base an assertion of untruthfulness on Mother’s refusal to say who had hit her. She

insisted that she had not lied to Taber about any boyfriends, denied that her life was chaotic or

that she was frequently in crisis, and said, “I tend to get the short end of the stick quite often.”

               Mother pled “the Fifth” and refused to answer questions about her pending charge

for burglary of a habitation. She denied that she had admitted that she used Henry’s credit cards

without his permission while he was in jail and said she had “never used anyone’s cards without

permission.” She said Flowers “took it—like I said, perception, because of what it looks like.

He was in jail. So . . . it looks like one way when it wasn’t that at all.” Instead, she testified, “I

had permission, and I was actually told to purchase those items for my daughter.”

                                                  19
               Mother talked about her plans if Charles were returned to her care, explaining that

she wanted to get him involved in a preschool program with children his age, to help him with

his sensory issues, and to engage in bonding therapy with him so that both she and Charles could

address “all the trauma that we’ve both been through.” She talked about her current routine with

her job and how she uses Opal’s grandmother for babysitting and described the room she had set

up for Charles and the items she had gotten for him. Mother testified that she had fixed her

plumbing, water heater, and flooring and that her residence had been inspected to be sure the

plumbing and electrical systems were safe. Mother said she had a support system though Opal’s

grandmother and aunt, Mother’s boss, and some friends she had made at work. She is working

with her therapist to address her PTSD, explaining that it was caused by being abused sexually,

physically, mentally, and verbally as a child.      She had bought a workbook on borderline

personality disorder and was working though it in her spare time. Mother testified that there will

be “a dramatic difference this time” because she had found a doctor she can meet monthly to be

sure she finds the right medications, she can talk to a therapist every week to address interim

concerns, and the office will do ongoing assessments instead of “a one-time psych eval.”

               In the June de novo hearing, Department investigator Janna Miles testified about

the case that was opened in mid-January 2022 for Mother and Opal, who was born in late

December 2021. Miles was assigned to the case in March 2022 and testified that Mother had

“been complying with everything I’ve asked” and had been cooperative, communicative, and

proactive. Mother was engaged in therapy, had “sought her own mental health treatment” and

had found a psychiatrist and therapist to work with, was working through a “self-paced book,”

and was taking medication to treat her mental health. In addition, she had completed a protective

                                               20
parenting class, was in the process of completing a family-violence program, and would be

taking another protective parenting class when she finished the family-violence program.

               For the most part, Miles did not request additional drug testing because Mother

was already doing “random drug testing for Burnet County.” Miles acknowledged that Mother

had tested positive for methamphetamine in a March 2022 nailbed test but explained that she did

not consider that test overly concerning because “a nail bed test goes back six to nine months,”

which would be before Opal was born. Miles was questioned about whether she should have

been concerned about a test indicating drug use while pregnant, and she answered, “[T]hat’s

speculation. So I can’t—I can’t be biased.” She also stated that although the drug test indicated

that Mother “[p]ossibly” used drugs while pregnant, “I can’t answer that with confidence.” A

hair-follicle test taken in early April, which indicated the preceding three months, was negative,

and Miles noted that when Opal was born, Mother’s urine test was negative; as a result, Opal’s

urine and meconium were not tested.        Miles acknowledged that Mother might have used

methamphetamine while pregnant with Opal but said, “I know that since [Opal] has been born

and she has been caring for [Opal], [Mother] has not used any drugs.”

               Miles knew of Henry and said there had “been speculation” that he had been

harassing Mother since she was released from jail. Despite that alleged harassment, Miles

agreed, Mother had tried to keep “bad influences out of her life.” Miles noted that Mother had

stopped her welding classes because there were “some people there that had some past,” and

Mother “did not want to be around anyone that would cause any issue in her case.” She had

stayed in her new job since leaving the welding course. Miles had visited Mother’s residence

several times and described it as a doublewide trailer with three bedrooms that was safe and

appropriate for Opal. Mother had all the items necessary to provide for Opal—formula, clothing,

                                               21
and sleeping arrangements. She testified that she had heard concerns that Mother might be

getting evicted, so she spoke to the landlord and verified that although Mother was renting month

to month without a written lease, there was no eviction process currently underway.

                Miles had observed Mother with Opal and said that Mother exhibited an

appropriate maternal instinct and had arranged for appropriate childcare while she worked.

Miles testified that with regard to Opal’s case, the Department was “looking to close the case” if

Miles can ensure that Mother has switched to public resources to continue managing her mental

health concerns: 5   “Although she’s already established mental health and she is taking

medication, before I close the case I want to ensure that she’s continuing to follow up with her

mental health and continue to address it. And—but everything else I have no concerns.” The

Department questioned Miles about her knowledge of Mother’s mental health issues or her

efforts to get treatment, raising concerns about whether Mother had seen a psychiatrist at all and

whether she had recently been unsuccessfully discharged by her therapist. Miles testified that

she had not delved closely into whether Mother had obtained a psychiatric evaluation, as

opposed to a psychological evaluation, and thought Mother had been discharged from therapy

because the case was coming to an end. Miles did not know what service plan had been put into

place for Charles and could not speak to his case or the appropriateness of termination in the

subject case.

                The Department introduced into evidence documents related to: Mother’s charge

for possession of methamphetamine in November 2016; her plea of guilty to that charge,

resulting in a six-month jail sentence; a 2017 charge for possession of methamphetamine that

       5   Mother initially started treatment by finding her own therapist and psychiatrist, but for
financial reasons was having to switch to a public mental-health provider.
                                                22
was dismissed as part of the 2016 guilty plea; her admission that in October 2016 she had

possessed marijuana and a prohibited weapon, “KNUCKLES”; her indictment for possession of

methamphetamine in July 2019; the revocation of her bond on that charge alleging that she had

tested positive for methamphetamine in November 2020; her December 17, 2020 guilty plea to

that offense in exchange for a probated two-year sentence; the revocation of her probation

alleging that she had committed burglary of a habitation in May 2021, had not successfully

completed the drug court program, and had not paid various fees; and her September 24, 2021

plea of true to those revocation allegations in exchange for a seven-month jail sentence. Mother

introduced her psychological evaluation from January 2022, which diagnosed her with borderline

personality disorder, PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, stimulant

use disorder, and ADHD. The report recommended a psychiatric evaluation, a drug abuse

assessment, psychotherapy, dialectic behavior therapy, drug testing, a parenting class, NA or

AA, and a domestic violence awareness class.

               At the conclusion of the de novo hearing, the trial court took the case under

advisement, eventually signing an order that found statutory grounds under subsections (D), (E),

and (O); found that termination was in Charles’s best interest; and terminated Mother’s rights.

Mother asserts eight issues challenging legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting

the trial court’s finding of statutory grounds under subsections (D), (E), and (O) and the court’s

finding of best interest. She also asserts that the trial court did not employ, as required by due

process, a review of Charles’s best interest under “a two prong test, i.e, 1) proof, by clear and

convincing evidence, of at least one statutory ground for termination, AND 2) proof, by clear and

convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the child, in accordance with

Texas Family Code 161.001.”

                                               23
                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW

               We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a trial court’s termination

decree under well-established standards. 6 The Department must prove by clear and convincing

evidence that the parent engaged in conduct that amounts to at least one statutory ground for

termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b).

Clear and convincing evidence is “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.” Id. § 101.007; In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tex. 2018). “The distinction

between legal and factual sufficiency lies in the extent to which disputed evidence contrary to a

finding may be considered.” A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 630. In reviewing legal sufficiency, we view

the evidence in the light most favorable to the factfinder’s determination, including undisputed

contrary evidence, and assume the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding. Id. at

630–31. In reviewing factual sufficiency, we weigh the evidence favoring the finding against

disputed evidence and consider whether the evidence “a reasonable factfinder could not have

credited in favor of a finding is so significant that the factfinder could not have formed a firm

belief or conviction that the finding was true.” Id. We must “provide due deference to the

decisions of the factfinder, who, having full opportunity to observe witness testimony first-hand,

is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses.” In re A.B.,

437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014); In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005).

       6  Mother also includes an issue asserting that this Court must “conduct a de novo review
in parental termination cases.” However, as noted above, the standard of review employed in
parental-termination cases is set out in established case law from the Texas Supreme Court, this
Court, and our sister courts. See, e.g., In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tex. 2018).
                                                24
                                  STATUTORY GROUNDS

               Stability and permanence are paramount in the upbringing of children, In re

M.E.-M.N., 342 S.W.3d 254, 263 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied), and a course of

conduct that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s well-

being, A.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 577 S.W.3d 689, 699 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2019, pet. denied) (quoting Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied)). Subsection (D) focuses on the child’s physical environment, and

the parent’s conduct can be a factor in producing an environment that threatens the child’s well-

being. J.G. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 592 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2019, no pet.) (quoting In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2019, no pet.). In considering subsection (E), “the focus is on the parent’s conduct—

including acts, omissions, or failures to act—and, specifically, on whether the evidence shows

that the parent engaged in ‘a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct’ that

endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.”        V.P. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam.

& Protective Servs., No. 03-19-00531-CV, 2020 WL 544797, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin

Feb. 4, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E)). The factfinder

may consider the parent’s conduct before and after the child was born and may infer that a

parent’s absence from the child’s life endangers the child’s emotional well-being.” Id. (citing

M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d at 765).        “A single act or omission can support termination under

subsection (D), but termination under subsection (E) must be based on “a voluntary, deliberate,

and conscious course of conduct.” J.G., 592 S.W.3d at 524.

               “[A] parent’s use of narcotics and its effect on his or her ability to parent may

qualify as an endangering course of conduct.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009);

                                               25
see In re C.V.L., 591 S.W.3d 734, 751 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. denied) (evidence of

parent’s drug use or that parent allowed child to be around drug user may show “voluntary,

deliberate, and conscious course of conduct” that endangers child); A.C., 577 S.W.3d at 699 (“A

parent’s illegal drug use may constitute endangerment under subsection (E).”).             Indeed, a

factfinder “is entitled to give ‘great weight’ to a parent’s drug-related conduct, as it is considered

a ‘significant factor’ supporting termination.” A.C., 577 S.W.3d at 705; see In re L.G.R.,

498 S.W.3d 195, 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Further, although

mere imprisonment on its own will not establish a course of endangering conduct, evidence

related to a parent’s imprisonment can be relevant to establishing such a course of conduct.

Texas Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533–34 (Tex. 1987); see also In re J.F.-G.,

627 S.W.3d 304, 316 (Tex. 2021) (parent’s lengthy absence from child’s life resulting from

parent’s criminal conduct—as opposed to “single, short-term incarceration”—may be sufficient

evidence to establish pattern of conduct “inimical to the very idea of child-rearing” and can

support finding of endangerment). In other words, a “long history of drug use and irresponsible

choices” has probative value, J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346, as does intentional criminal activity that

exposes the parent to the possibility of incarceration and introduces an element of instability into

the child’s life, see, e.g., D.N. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-15-00658-CV,

2016 WL 1407808, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

               Mother’s two older children had been removed from her care and her parental

rights to them were terminated. While on bond and pregnant with Charles, Mother tested

positive for methamphetamine, resulting in bond revocations to try to keep the unborn baby safe.

Mother participated in a family-based safety services cases related to Charles, and the

Department opened the subject case after Mother again tested positive for methamphetamine.

                                                 26
Mother evaded the Department’s attempts to check on Charles’s welfare, and he tested positive

for methamphetamine despite Mother’s insistence that she never used the drug when she was

around him. Mother largely tested negative for drug use throughout the case, but she tested

positive for morphine once, her nailbed test conducted while the final hearing was underway was

positive for methamphetamine, and she missed a few tests, which are deemed positive. See In re

J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 734 (Tex. 2022) (“As for the required drug testing, Mother missed twelve

of fourteen scheduled drug tests, resulting in those missed tests being deemed positive.”); J.B.

v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-21-00325-CV, 2021 WL 5456653, at *6

(Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 17, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (parent missed more than twenty

drug tests, which trial court could have presumed would have been positive).

               In addition to Mother’s drug use, which occurred while she was pregnant with

Charles and during his infancy, Mother was placed on probation for a drug possession charge but

had her probation revoked after she tested positive for methamphetamine and was arrested for

burglary, charges which were still pending at the time of trial. Mother was incarcerated for about

six months during the pendency of the case, a period during which she did not work any services

and could not see Charles. Henry alleged that she had used his money without his consent while

he was in jail and that she had falsified documents to move into the house he had intended to

rent. Mother has a track record of surrounding herself with people who are drug users, have

criminal records, or are violent. Indeed, she testified that “literally every single person” she

knows has a criminal record, although she did say that she had quit a welding program to try to

avoid contact with such people. Several witnesses expressed concern that Mother has a pattern

of choosing unsuitable partners, resulting in instability and domestic violence. There were also

questions raised about Mother’s living arrangements, with Mother insisting that she had a stable

                                               27
month-to-month situation, placed at risk only by Henry harassing the landlord and his agent, and

Torres expressing concern that the landlord did not agree. Grandfather testified that Mother has

long had mental health issues and has a pattern of stopping medication and instead self-

medicating, resulting in a slide back into instability. Finally, multiple witnesses stated that

Mother’s general circumstances were chaotic and that she was in a near-constant state of crisis.

               Mother disputed much of the Department’s testimony, insisting that she had

achieved stable housing and employment and denying that she had a track record of making bad

choices. She also disputed the nailbed test results and explained that the test that was positive for

morphine was related to her having been hospitalized after being assaulted. However, the trial

court heard the testimony of the various witnesses and was entrusted with weighing the

witnesses’ credibility and determining how to resolve disputes in the evidence, and we cannot

second-guess those decisions. See J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d at 312 (“Because the factfinder ‘is the

sole arbiter of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor,’ appellate review must defer to the trial

court’s factual determinations, even in parental termination cases.” (quoting J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d

at 346)). Based on this record and the deference we must pay to the factfinder’s determinations

related to credibility, the trial court could have found by clear and convincing evidence that

Mother had endangered Charles—both by her course of conduct and by placing him in an

environment that threatened his well-being: using methamphetamine while pregnant and in his

presence during his infancy, engaging in criminal activity that resulted in her incarceration,

surrounding herself with others who engage in criminal or violent behavior, and delaying seeking

appropriate mental health assistance until the final hearing was underway.           See, e.g., E.G.

v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22-00469-CV, 2022 WL 17970222, at *8

(Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 28, 2022, no pet.) (“Evidence of a parent’s drug use, or evidence that

                                                 28
another parent allowed a child to be around a parent or other persons using drugs, can support the

conclusion that the child’s surroundings endanger her physical or emotional well-being under

subsection (D).” (quoting In re C.V.-L., 591 S.W.3d 734, 751 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019,

pet. denied))); C.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-21-00164-CV,

2021 WL 3073263, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin July 21, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (sufficient

evidence to support finding under (E) when mother used marijuana while pregnant, physically

assaulted children, left illegal drugs in children’s reach and used drugs in their presence, was

previously convicted for injury to child, absconded with children without notifying other state’s

child-welfare agency, exhibited symptoms of mental illness and admitted having mental-health

needs but was not taking medications, tested positive for methamphetamine during case, failed to

complete most court-ordered services, was only minimally cooperative during the FBSS period,

refused to allow children to attend therapy, failed to address children’s special needs, and was

currently incarcerated); T.A.W. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-20-00364-CV,

2021 WL 81866, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 8, 2021, pet. denied) (evidence of parent’s

mental instability or of domestic violence in home can support finding of endangerment under

(D)). Thus, we hold that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial

court’s findings of statutory grounds under subsections (D) and (E). We overrule Mother’s fifth,

sixth, seventh, and eighth issues.    Because we have upheld the finding of grounds under

subsections (D) and (E), we need not consider Mother’s issues related to subsection (O). See

Spurck v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 396 S.W.3d 205, 222 (Tex. App.—Austin

2013, no pet.).

                                                29
                                        BEST INTEREST

               We review a trial court’s best-interest determination in light of the considerations

set out in Holley v. Adams, taking into account the child’s wishes, their emotional and physical

needs now and in the future, present and future emotional or physical danger posed to the child,

the parenting skills of those seeking custody, any programs available to assist those seeking

custody to promote the child’s best interest, plans for the child’s future, the stability of the home

or proposed placement, conduct by the parent that might show that the parent-child relationship

is inappropriate, and any excuses for the parent’s conduct. 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976).

The Holley factors are not exhaustive and need not all be proved, and a lack of evidence about

some of the factors does not “preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction

or belief that termination is in the child’s best interest, particularly if the evidence were

undisputed that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the child.”          In re C.H.,

89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). The child’s need for permanence is the paramount consideration

when determining a child’s present and future physical and emotional needs. L.R. v. Texas Dep’t

of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-18-00125-CV, 2018 WL 3059959, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin June 21, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). A parent’s rights may not be terminated merely because the

child might be better off living elsewhere, but the factfinder may consider whether termination

and adoption versus an impermanent foster-care arrangement would better serve the child’s best

interest. See L.R., 2018 WL 3059959, at *1.

               Mother asserts that there was “little to no testimony as to how [Charles] is doing

in his current placement” or what services he was receiving that Mother could not offer.

However, Ricketson, Torres, Read, and Grandfather all testified that Charles was thriving,

                                                 30
happy, loved, and secure in his foster placement. Read testified that Charles had been “very

delayed” when he came into the Department’s care and that he had made excellent progress in

his foster home. They all agreed that it was in Charles’s best interest for Mother’s rights to be

terminated and for Charles to remain with his foster family, which hopes to adopt him. Read

testified about the therapy that the foster family had engaged in to try to help Charles work

through past trauma, and multiple witnesses testified that the foster family was meeting his every

need and committed to doing so in the future. Charles, who was not yet three at the time of trial,

was removed from Mother’s care when he was just over a year and had lived with his foster

family since. He was too young to express his wishes, but the testimony was that he was bonded

with and loved by his foster family. See C.F. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs.,

No. 03-21-00250-CV, 2021 WL 5018839, at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 29, 2021, pet. denied)

(mem. op.); In re J.M., 156 S.W.3d 696, 706 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).

               Mother was employed and had housing, a residence that Miles testified was safe

and appropriate, but there were questions raised about whether her housing situation was as

stable as she claimed it to be. Mother seems recently to be engaging in services and attending to

her mental health, but evidence indicated that she did not consistently avail herself of services or

engage in therapy until late in the case’s pendency, nor did she establish psychiatric care until the

hearing was underway. Multiple witnesses testified that Mother’s life was generally in a state of

chaos and crisis. Grandfather expressed concerns that Mother has a pattern of getting help and

finding stability before going off her prescribed medications and self-medicating, and Taber

expressed similar concerns, noting that Mother had worked on the same issues in an earlier

parenting class but did not seem to have internalized any of the information given in that class.

Mother used methamphetamine while pregnant with Charles and while he was in her care, and

                                                 31
she appears to have done the same with Opal, although Miles said she could not be sure of that

fact. See In re E.W., No. 10-16-00132-CV, 2017 WL 4079713, at *6 (Tex. App.—Waco

Sept. 13, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“evidence of past misconduct or neglect can be used to

measure a parent’s future conduct”). And although Mother argued at trial and again argues on

appeal that the trial court should instead have granted “a less restrictive order, such as a

permanent managing conservatorship to the Department,” the court could have weighed whether

the stability offered by termination and adoption would better serve Charles’s best interest than

would an impermanent foster-care arrangement. See C.F., 2021 WL 5018839, at *9 (rejecting

parent’s argument that conservatorship arrangement would serve child’s best interest and noting

that “courts have long recognized that stability and permanence are of the utmost importance to a

child’s best interest,” that factfinder may consider consequences of refusal to terminate parental

rights, and that child’s best interest “may be served by termination so that adoption may occur

rather than the temporary foster-care or parent-child conservatorship arrangement that would

result” otherwise); L.R., 2018 WL 3059959, at *1 (“factfinder can consider that a child’s best

interest may be served by termination of parental rights so that adoption may occur rather than

the impermanent foster-care arrangement that would result if termination were not ordered”

(quoting Robert T. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-12-00061-CV, 2013 WL

812116, at *12 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.))).

               Considering the evidence in light of the Holley factors, again giving

proper deference to the trial court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight

to be given to the evidence, the court could have found that clear and convincing evidence

supported a conclusion that termination is in Charles’s best interest. See, e.g., In re V.A.,

No. 13–06–00237–CV, 2007 WL 293023, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi̵–Edinburg

                                               32
Feb. 1, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering parent’s history of “unstable housing, unstable

employment, unstable relationships, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol usage”). We

hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the court’s best-interest

finding and overrule Mother’s third and fourth issues.

               Mother argues in her second issue that the trial court could not have performed a

proper evaluation of Charles’s best interest because the “uncontroverted evidence that neither

termination, nor removal is in the best interest of [Opal] negates any argument that it is in the

best interest of [Charles] that his mother’s rights should be terminated.” In essence, she insists

that because Miles testified that she intended to close Opal’s case and leave the baby with

Mother, the Department could not have established that termination is in Charles’s best interest.

However, as our sister court noted when presented with an argument that the Department cannot

seek to terminate a parent’s rights to one child if it is not also seeking to do the same as to

another, “[t]hat is clearly not the case, [and] we must determine best interest as it applies to each

child and his particular circumstances.” In re T.R., No. 01-18-00834-CV, 2019 WL 610766, at

*6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 14, 2019, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.). As in that

case, one child’s best interest “is not necessarily the same as” another child’s, and “the evidence

is not legally and factually insufficient simply because the Department is not presently seeking

termination” of the rights to all of a parent’s children. Id. The facts relevant to this case date

back to well before Opal’s birth and include Mother’s drug use while pregnant with Charles and

while he was in her care as an infant, her absconding with him rather than allowing the

Department to ensure his safety, her ongoing engagement with men who were violent or drug

users, her arrest for burglary that resulted in incarceration for six months, and her apparent

reluctance to engage in Department mandated services to improve her parenting skills and

                                                 33
mental health. The fact that she seems to be making better progress recently does not negate

what came before Opal’s birth.         And the fact that Opal’s caseworker has drawn different

conclusions about Mother’s stability and appropriateness as a parent does not negate the

conclusions drawn by Ricketson, Torres, and Read as related to Charles, nor does it require the

trial court to have found that termination is not in Charles’s best interest, particularly given the

testimony about the child’s unique emotional needs. See id. We overrule Mother’s second issue.

                                          CONCLUSION

               We have overruled Mother’s challenges to the evidence supporting the trial

court’s finding of best interest and of statutory grounds under subsections (D) and (E). We have

further overruled her assertion that the trial court’s best-interest determination was bound by the

Department’s decisions in Opal’s case. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order terminating

Mother’s parental rights to Charles.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: March 3, 2023

                                                 34