Court Opinion

ID: 9369932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 08:20:32.888595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.090568
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________

                              NO. 09-22-00284-CV
                              ________________

                         IN THE INTEREST OF A.P.R.

_______________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 20-12-15566-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor son,

“Alan.”1 In her appeal, Mother argues that the evidence presented to the trial court

was legally and/or factually insufficient to support the trial court’s findings

terminating her parental relationship with Alan, including the trial court’s best-

interest finding. 2 Based on our review of Mother’s arguments, we conclude that the

      1
        We refer to Appellant as “Mother,” the child’s caregiver as “Aunt,” and the
child by a pseudonym to protect their identities. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
      2
        The trial court terminated Mother’s rights on four predicate grounds,
including condition endangerment and conduct endangerment. See Tex. Fam. Code
                                       1
record supports the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s

order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

                                   I. Background

      Mother and Father were never ceremonially married but lived together during

2018 when the child was born until some time in late 2018, when they apparently

separated and established parentage in the Title IV-D Court by Order signed on

December 18, 2020 (the Acknowledgment of Paternity, signed April 4, 2018,

indicated Mother and Father had the same address). It appears from the records

before the trial court that Mother and Father lived together for some period of time

after the child was born. When Mother and Father ended their relationship, Father

and Mother were appointed joint managing conservators, and Father was granted the

exclusive right to determine Alan’s residence. Approximately three months after the

custody order was entered, the Department received a report of “medical neglect”

regarding Alan. The report indicated that Alan had not “taken a bath in weeks[,]”

that Father’s house was so filthy that “a foul odor [could] be smelled from outside

of the home[,]” and that Mother and Father were known drug users.

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The trial court further found that Mother had
constructively abandoned Alan and failed to comply with a court order incorporating
the terms of her plan of service. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O). Father’s parental
rights were also terminated, but he did not appeal the termination order.
                                             2
      The Department’s investigation revealed that although Alan had a “severe

diaper rash” and was somewhat dirty, he appeared happy and outgoing despite being

“non-verbal and delayed in speech.” This investigation further showed that the

interior of Father’s home, where Alan was living, was messy, dirty, and infested with

flies; Father attributed the flies to an ongoing plumbing repair.

      The Department then contacted Mother, who stated that transportation issues

prevented her from consistently exercising her visitation privileges with Alan.

Mother told the investigator that Father refused to bring her the child for visitation,

and other evidence revealed that Mother’s sister sometimes picked up Alan for

Mother’s weekend visitations. Mother also admitted occasional use of illegal drugs.

      Due to concern over Alan’s safety, the Department removed him from

Father’s home and placed him with Father’s sister’s family. The trial began on June

1, 2022, and took place over multiple days. Based on her attorney’s representations,

Mother knew of the trial dates and times but failed to attend, because she lacked

transportation.

      The Department caseworkers testified, as did the CASA advocate and Alan’s

caregiver. The trial court also considered nine exhibits that were admitted at trial

without objection, which consisted of: prior temporary orders; a prior child support

order establishing parentage and conservatorship; the Family Services Plans; a

psychosocial evaluation of Mother; and the Resource Education Center Reports

                                          3
showing Mother’s attendance/progress with the treatment plan. We summarize the

evidence below.

A. Eva Vigh’s Testimony

      Vigh, the CASA advocate, testified that she spoke to Mother a few times

during the pendency of the case, and that she and Department Conservatorship

Worker Casey Beals once visited Mother at Mother’s apartment. Vigh stated that

Mother was living in an apartment with several other people, including Mother’s

new baby. Vigh testified that while Mother indicated she was comfortable with

Alan’s placement in his aunt’s home, she wished to maintain her parental rights to

her son. In Vigh’s opinion, it was in Alan’s best interest that Mother’s parental rights

to Alan be terminated, because Alan had been placed in “a stable home[,]” was

“bonding with his caregivers,” and because Mother had not “shown consistency or

effort in completing [her] service plan.” She did not elaborate on the ways that

Mother was not compliant with her service plan.

B. Shelby McMinn’s Testimony

      McMinn was the Department investigator in Alan’s case. She described her

initial involvement in the investigation, when she visited Father’s home after they

received a report of “neglectful supervision and physical neglect.” When she entered

the home, she discovered that it was infested with flies and littered with garbage.

McMinn also testified that she detected an “odor also coming from the home[,]”

                                           4
although she denied noticing any “foul smell” in her affidavit of April 30, 2021.

According to McMinn’s observations, Alan had not bathed “in a couple of days[,]”

had a severe diaper rash, and was nonverbal. She directed Father to see a pediatrician

to address the diaper rash and speech delay. Father told McMinn that Mother uses

drugs “all the time.”

      During that initial visit, Father indicated that Mother was unstable and “like[d]

to party[.]” Father also indicated that Mother was inconsistent in visiting Alan, and

Mother’s sister sometimes picked up Alan for his scheduled visits with Mother.

Father was escorted to a drug-testing facility in downtown Conroe where he

submitted urine and hair samples. The tests were positive for methamphetamines,

amphetamines, and marijuana. After McMinn spoke to Father about his drug test

results, he told her “I already know that you know[,]” agreed to placement with his

family member, and ceased contact with the Department.

C. Malcolm Stowe’s Testimony

      Stowe like McMinn, worked as an investigator for the Department. He

testified that when he contacted Mother, she was vague about her living

arrangements and did not allow him to enter her apartment. Mother acknowledged

using illegal drugs, specifically marijuana and Ecstasy, but denied using drugs when

Alan was in her care. Mother told Stowe that she had visitation every other week,

and that she regularly paid child support. When asked about visitation, Mother told

                                          5
Stowe that particular day her car was not running, so her sister picked up Alan for

Mother’s scheduled visit.

D. Casey Beals’ Testimony

      Beals, the assigned CPS caseworker, testified regarding the service plans

developed for both Mother and Father. Regarding Mother’s service plan, Beals

testified that although Mother previously provided proof of employment, she failed

to furnish proof that she had returned to work following the birth of her new baby in

January of 2022. Beals further testified that Mother completed the ordered parenting

classes but never provided proof of doing so, and she completed her random drug

screens until January of that year, when her new baby was born.

      Beals recalled speaking with Mother about her service plan, noting that she

ceased working on her plan at about the time she had her second child. Beals said

Mother failed to complete the recommendations of the psychologist and failed to

complete the Family Service Plan by not re-engaging after her second child was born

in January of 2022. In spite of this, Beals continued reaching out to Mother via phone

calls and text messages which went unanswered. In Beals’ opinion, it was in Alan’s

best interest to keep Alan in his current placement and terminate Mother’s parental

rights. Beals based this opinion on information that Alan was doing well in that

placement as they were meeting his needs, getting him speech therapy, and he had

bonded with his foster family.

                                          6
E. Aunt’s Testimony

      Alan’s aunt (Father’s sister) is his caregiver. She testified that when Alan first

came into her care, he had a “really bad” case of diaper rash, his clothes were too

small for him, and he was so dirty that he needed two baths. In contrast, Alan was

“doing great” at the time of trial. Aunt acknowledged that Mother had virtual visits

with Alan after Mother’s car broke down, and that Mother’s last visit took place in

April of 2022. Aunt stated that Mother tended to call at random times; for that reason,

Aunt scheduled Mother’s virtual visits for every other Sunday morning, but stated

that Mother stopped calling.

      According to Aunt, Mother wanted Alan to remain with Aunt. Aunt testified

they wanted to adopt Alan and believed it was in Alan’s best interest that the rights

of both parents be terminated because Mother was “very inconsistent.”

F. Documentary Evidence

      The documentary evidence admitted without objection indicated that Mother

was diagnosed with “cannabis mild use disorder” and “amphetamine mild use

disorder[,]” requiring a supportive outpatient treatment program and random

urinalysis. Mother reported that despite a history of using methamphetamines every

other weekend, beginning at age eighteen, she has not used methamphetamines in

two years. This information conflicts with Father’s statements to McMinn that

Mother “uses drugs all the time.” By March 1, 2022, Mother only completed 21 of

                                          7
45 sessions required to complete her substance abuse program. The target date for

completing the substance abuse program was June 7, 2022. The Parenting

Assessment portion of the psychological/social report prepared by the psychologist,

Chelsea McCann, indicated that Mother was a medium-level risk for child abuse or

neglect. Mother told the psychologist that she visited Alan every week during the

time Alan was living with Father.

      Father agreed to submit to a Substance Abuse Assessment by the Resource

Education Center where he was diagnosed, based upon self-reporting, as having

Cannabis Moderate Use Disorder, Amphetamine Mild Use Disorder, and met the

criteria for Psycho-Social and Environmental Issues (AXIS IV) based upon his

admission of a history of using marijuana to deal with anxiety and sleep issues.

                              II. Standard of Review

      The decision to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and

convincing evidence. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b). Under the Family Code,

“‘[c]lear and convincing evidence’ means 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 J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79,

84 (Tex. 2005) (citations omitted). The movant must show that the parent committed

one or more predicate acts or omissions and that termination is in the child’s best

interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d at 84.

                                          8
      In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a parental rights

termination case, we must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

finding to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief

or conviction that the finding was true. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344–45 (Tex.

2009) (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). In a factual

sufficiency review, the question we must decide is not what we would have found

from the evidence had we been seated as the factfinder in the trial. Rather the

question is whether from the evidence as a whole the factfinder could “reasonably

form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the [Department’s] allegations.”

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002). When conducting a factual-sufficiency

review, we “give due deference” to the findings that are based on the direct and

circumstantial evidence that was admitted before the factfinder in the trial. In re

H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006) (cleaned up). We assume the factfinder

resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so,

and we disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved.

Id. In a factual sufficiency review, we “give due consideration to evidence that the

factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.” In re J.F.C., 96

S.W.3d at 266. We must determine “‘whether the evidence is such that a factfinder

could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State’s

allegations.’” Id. (quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 25). When deciding whether a

                                          9
reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the

evidence supports a finding challenged in an appeal, we defer to the factfinder’s role

as the “‘sole arbiter of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor[]’” when the

inferences it drew from the evidence before it were reasonable. In re J.F.-G., 627

S.W.3d 304, 312 (Tex. 2021); see In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022)

(citations omitted). “If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a

reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant

that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then

the evidence is factually insufficient.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. In a case tried

to the bench, the trial court acts as the factfinder, determines which witnesses are

credible, decides what weight to give the testimony, and is free to resolve any

inconsistencies that may exist in the testimony. See Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 83

(Tex. 2011); In re N.P.H., No. 09-15-00010-CV, 2016 WL 5234599, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont Sept. 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“In a bench trial, the trial

court acts as both the factfinder and as the sole judge of the credibility of

witnesses.”).

                                    III. Analysis

A. The Endangerment Findings

      “‘[E]ndanger’ means to expose to loss or injury[.]” In re N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d

358, 367 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs.

                                          10
v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987)). Subjecting a child to a life of uncertainty

and instability endangers the child’s physical and emotional well-being. See In re

R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see also In

re J.O., No. 09-21-00341-CV, 2022 WL 802559, at *9 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar.

17, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In her first two issues, Mother challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to support termination of her parental rights under

sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E). We are required to consider the sufficiency of the

evidence pursuant to Sections 161.001(b)((D) or (E) if challenged. See In re N.G.,

577 S.W.3d 230, 235–36 (Tex. 2019). Mother argues that the evidence is legally and

factually insufficient because these sections require Mother’s knowledge of Alan’s

endangering living conditions and/or the endangering conduct of Alan’s caregiver.

Specifically, section D states that in order to terminate Mother’s rights, it must be

shown that she “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in

conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of

the child; section E requires evidence that Mother “engaged in conduct or knowingly

placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical

or emotional well-being of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E). (emphasis added). “Conduct” includes the parent’s failure to act. See In re T.A.,

                                         11
No. 12-20-00276-CV, 2021 WL 2182316, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 28, 2021,

pet. denied) (mem. op.).

      1. Statutory Ground E (Conduct Endangerment)

      The evidence shows that during Mother’s psychological evaluation, Mother

stated that Father was “using drugs and stuff[.]” The trial court as the factfinder could

reasonably conclude from this evidence that Mother was aware of Father’s illicit

drug use and failed to protect Alan from that situation. Despite Mother’s knowledge

of Father’s drug use, however, Mother voluntarily entered into an agreement

allowing Alan to live with Father. Likewise, Mother acknowledged to the CPS

investigator Stowe that she used illegal drugs, and the records admitted at trial

indicated she reported a history of drug use that went back many years. Because a

pattern of drug abuse will support a finding of conduct endangering a child, and

because Mother “knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct

which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child[,]” the trial court

was justified in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had engaged

in conduct endangerment when she agreed to let Alan live with Father. See Vasquez

v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (explaining that a pattern of drug abuse will

support a finding of conduct endangerment even if the child is not physically

harmed); see also In re J.O., 2022 WL 802559, at *10 (noting same).

                                           12
      We therefore overrule Mother’s point as to section E.

      2. Statutory Ground D (Condition Endangerment)

      The unkempt state of Father’s home, Alan’s living environment, could be

considered a condition of endangerment under subsection D. See In re J.O., 2022

WL 802559, at *10 (explaining that unsanitary living conditions may support a

finding of condition endangerment). Mother argues that the record contains no

evidence that she was aware of the condition of Father’s residence. For that reason,

Mother contends that the trial court’s section D finding cannot stand. We disagree.

      Assuming without deciding that Mother was unaware of the state of Father’s

residence, she knew that Father used illegal drugs, yet agreed to let Alan live with

Father. It is therefore reasonable to infer that Mother knew that Father was using

these illegal drugs in his residence, thus endangering Alan. See In re B.M.S., 581

S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.) (“A child is endangered when

the environment creates a potential for danger that the parent is aware of but

disregards…Evidence of illegal drug use and drug-related criminal activity by a

parent supports the conclusion that the children’s surroundings are endangering to

their physical or emotional well-being.”). The frequency of Mother’s contact visits

with Alan (weekly or biweekly over a period of a year and a half prior to removal),

are a reasonable basis for the factfinder to have established a firm belief or

conviction that Mother was aware of the endangering condition in which Alan was

                                        13
living: specifically, Father’s history of illegal drug use that was continuing while

Father was in possession of Alan. See id. Giving due deference to the trial court’s

factual findings that Mother knowingly left Alan in endangering conditions or

surroundings, we cannot conclude that the trial court lacked a firm belief or

conviction that the State’s allegations were proved by clear and convincing evidence.

See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. Giving due deference to the trial court’s

determination of the facts, we therefore overrule Mother’s condition endangerment

argument.

B. The Remaining Termination Findings

      Because we conclude legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the

trial court’s termination order under sections D and E, we need not consider

Mother’s arguments regarding sections N and O. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.001(b)(1); In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 232–33; Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

C. Best Interest Finding

      In her final issue, Mother challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the

evidence to support the trial court’s determination that terminating her parental

rights was in Alan’s best interest.

      There is a strong presumption that a child’s best interest is served by

maintaining the child’s relationship with his natural parent. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

153.131(b); see also In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (noting that a

                                         14
“strong presumption” exists favoring keeping a child with his or her parent). It is

also presumed that “the prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe

environment is . . . in the child’s best interest.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(a).

To reconcile these seemingly contradictory principles, the trial court is afforded

“wide latitude in determining the best interests of a minor child.” Gillespie v.

Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982) (citing Leithold v. Plass, 413 S.W.2d

698 (Tex. 1967) (other citations omitted)).

      As the reviewing court, we must decide whether the record, when considered

as a whole, supports the trial court’s best interest finding. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d

at 28; In re O.V., No. 09-21-00408-CV, 2022 WL 961747, at *7 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Mar. 31, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). To make this determination, we

consider the non-exclusive factors identified by the Texas Supreme Court in Holley

v. Adams, to the extent that they apply to the case before us. 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–

72 (Tex. 1976).3 The Department need not present evidence of all of the Holley

      3
          These factors are as follows:

       1. the child’s desires;
       2. the child’s current and future physical and emotional needs;
       3. the current and future physical and emotional danger to the child;
       4. the parenting abilities of the parties seeking custody;
       5. the programs available to assist the party seeking custody;
       6. the plans for the child by the parties seeking custody;
       7. the stability of the home or proposed placement;
       8. the parent’s acts or omissions that reveal that the existing parent-child
relationship is improper; and
                                            15
factors; strong evidence of one factor relevant to the child’s safety will support a

best interest finding, while scant evidence of each Holley factor will not. See In re

C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.

      The Family Code also identifies several additional factors relevant to a best

interest analysis. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b). These include, among

others, (i) whether there is a history of abusive or assaultive conduct by the child’s

family, (ii) whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child’s family, (iii)

whether the family is willing and able to seek and complete counseling services, (iv)

the parent’s willingness and ability to effect positive personal changes within a

reasonable period of time, and (v) whether an adequate social support system

consisting of extended family and friends is available to the child. Id. §

263.307(b)(7), (8), (10), (11), (13).

      1. Desires of the Child

      There was no evidence of Alan’s desires regarding his placement. Although

the record does contain testimony that he was bonded with Aunt’s family, the record

also contains evidence that Alan “had a[] relationship with [Mother].” This evidence

does not weigh either in favor of or against termination of Mother’s parental rights.

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

      Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976).
                                     16
      2. Physical and Emotional Needs or Danger

      Alan continues to have a need for speech therapy. This evidence supports the

conclusion that Alan was and is better off in Aunt’s care than in Mother’s or Father’s

care because Aunt is better equipped to furnish Alan with this needed therapy. The

evidence also established that Aunt was meeting his needs. The best interest standard

does not, however, authorize termination of Mother’s parental rights simply because

Aunt has more resources at her disposal. See In re C.E.K., 214 S.W.3d 492, 498–99

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.).

      Regardless of Aunt’s resources, Mother allowed Alan to be in the primary

possession of Father, a known user of illegal drugs, which demonstrated her

indifference to Alan’s physical and emotional safety. See Walker v. Tex. Dept. of

Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2009, pet. denied) (noting that illicit drug use may support termination because “it

exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or

imprisoned[]”). In addition, the trial court could infer from Mother’s failure to

continue the drug testing requested by the Department that she had resumed her

history of using illegal drugs and would be harmful to Alan. See In re K.C.B., 280

S.W.3d 888, 895 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied). This evidence weighs in

favor of termination.

                                         17
      3. Parenting Abilities

      Mother’s service plan states that Mother “does appear to possess appropriate

skills and parenting knowledge.” Mother’s service plan further indicates that she has

no known physical or mental health issues that would impede her ability to parent

Alan. However, Mother’s long history of drug use (which would have begun in 2013,

when she was 18 years old) has hindered her ability to parent Alan appropriately.

Not only has Mother ignored Father’s drug use, she acquiesced in the custody

arrangement despite her knowledge of Father’s drug use. This evidence calls

Mother’s parenting abilities into question, and weighs in favor of termination of

Mother’s parental rights.

      4. Programs Available

      Aunt testified that Alan received speech therapy while in her care, and he

would be receiving speech therapy through the school. The record contains no other

evidence of programs available to assist Alan; therefore, this factor is neutral as to

termination.

      5. Plans for the Child

      Aunt testified that she plans to adopt Alan. Aunt also testified that Mother

wished to leave Alan with Aunt, as did Vigh. Vigh further noted that Mother did not

wish to lose her parental rights. The evidence established that Aunt planned to

continue Alan’s speech therapy and enroll him in Pre-K, where he would continue

                                         18
to receive those services, which indicated they were meeting his needs. Beals

testified that it would be in Alan’s best interest for the parental rights to be terminated

and for him to remain with his current caregiver. This factor weighs in favor of

termination.

       6. Stability of the Home

       The testimony at trial revealed that Mother had been living in an apartment

with several other people, and that this apartment would not accommodate Alan if

Mother were to regain custody of Alan. That evidence does not favor awarding

Mother physical possession of Alan. The Department established that Mother’s

home was not hers, and she had no place for Alan in the residence. Accordingly, it

could be determined to be inappropriate. Therefore, this factor favors termination of

Mother’s rights to Alan.

       7. Improper Parent/Child Relationship

       Evidence relevant to this factor, such as Mother’s previous drug use, is

addressed elsewhere in this opinion. This factor also weighs in favor of termination.

       8. Parent’s Acts/Omissions/Excuses

       The trial court found that Mother was indigent. This economic disadvantage

might explain Mother’s inability to repair her car in order to visit Alan in person and

her inability to rent a suitable apartment where she could live with her two children.

Without evidence of Mother’s financial situation and how it affected her decisions,

                                            19
however, we are unable to conclude that these choices were compelled by her own

economic disadvantage. We are instead left with evidence that for whatever reason,

Mother was living in an apartment with another family. Because Mother did not

provide a suitable home for Alan and allowed him to live with Father despite

Father’s known illegal drug use, we conclude this factor likewise weighs in favor of

termination.

      9. Overall Assessment of Best Interest

      The evidence expressly addressing Alan’s best interest consists of Vigh’s and

Beals’ testimony, along with the documentary evidence admitted without objection

at trial, that it would be in Alan’s best interest to terminate Mother’s rights because

Mother failed to complete her plan and because Alan had bonded with Aunt’s family.

The evidence of best interest also includes Aunt’s testimony that termination would

be in Alan’s best interest because Mother’s contact with Alan was “very

inconsistent.”

      We also consider evidence of Mother’s endangering conduct, as shown by her

acquiescence in a custody arrangement that placed Alan with Father, a known illegal

drug user. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (explaining endangering conduct was

relevant to best interest analysis). In addition, Dr. McCann’s finding that Mother

presented a medium risk for child abuse is additional evidence to consider in the

overall assessment in light of Mother’s substance abuse history since 2013.

                                          20
      Evidence of one Holley factor, particularly one relevant to a child’s safety,

may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in a child’s best interest.

See In re K.F., No. 09-21-00078-CV, 2021 WL 3774703, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Aug. 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Moreover, a parent’s past

performance as a parent is relevant to a determination of present and future ability

to provide for a child. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28.

      We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to have permitted a reasonable

trier of fact to form a firm belief or conviction that Alan’s best interest was served

by terminating Mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, we overrule issue five.

                                    IV. Conclusion

      Given the evidence presented at trial through witnesses and all exhibits

admitted, we hold a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or

conviction that Mother committed a predicate act under subsections D and E. We

further hold that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or

conviction that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in Alan’s best interest. We

therefore affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

                                         21
      AFFIRMED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                        JAY WRIGHT
                                                           Justice

Submitted on November 14, 2022
Opinion Delivered February 9, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                         22