Court Opinion

ID: 9369931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 08:20:31.948161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.081042
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00328-CV
                               __________________

                        IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. JR.

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 21-09-12252-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      After a bench trial, Father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to

his one-year-old son, A.R. Jr. (A.R.)1 The order also terminated the parental rights

of A.R.’s mother (Mother). 2 We affirm.

      1
         To protect the identity of the child, we use pseudonyms to refer to the child
and his parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
       2
         In this case, Mother executed an Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of
Parental Rights to the Department of Family and Protective Services, and she is not
a party to this appeal. We discuss Mother only as necessary for context.
                                            1
                                    Background

      On September 3, 2021, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the

Department) filed an Original Petition for Protection of a Child, For

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

Relationship. The petition named A.R. as the child of the suit and Mother and Father

as A.R.’s parents. When the petition was filed, A.R. was a month old.

      The petition was supported by an affidavit from a Child Protective Services

(CPS) worker and representative of the Department. The affidavit stated that, on

August 9, 2021, the Department received a referral for neglectful supervision of A.R.

by Mother and Father. According to the affidavit, the report stated that Mother and

Father had previously had parental rights terminated, Father had a history of using

methamphetamine, and Mother had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and

other mental health diagnoses and was not taking her medication.

      According to the affidavit, the Department representative arrived at Mother

and Father’s residence on August 9, 2021, and Mother exited the residence with an

“aggressive” demeanor. When the representative explained to Mother he was with

CPS and needed to speak with her about a case that was called in, Mother responded

that she wanted to know “who is calling in these cases[,]” and she wanted to know

how she “is getting a case if the baby is still currently in the NICU.” The affidavit

                                         2
stated that Father then exited the residence and ordered the representative to leave

the premises.

      Once the representative arrived at Memorial Hermann Hospital in The

Woodlands, a nurse informed the representative that A.R. was born at twenty-seven

weeks and was expected to be in the hospital for approximately ten more weeks.

According to the affidavit, the social worker’s notes stated that Mother had extensive

CPS history in Oklahoma, and that although Mother had stated she had been off from

work the two weeks prior, there were no notes in A.R.’s chart indicating his parents

had visited him in the hospital.

      The representative stated in the affidavit that he met with Mother and Father

at the CPS office on August 12, 2021, and he immediately observed a foul odor

coming from them. Mother informed the representative that she was diagnosed as

bipolar, as having PTSD, and as having borderline personality disorder, but that she

had not been on medications during her pregnancy. When the representative asked

about previous domestic violence, Mother and Father told the representative they

were going to set up marriage counseling. Mother and Father also said they were not

using drugs at the time but they were “taking CBD oil[,]” and they agreed to take a

drug test. The next day, Mother left a voicemail for the representative, and Mother

stated that she spoke with an attorney and that the Department would have to get a

                                          3
court order for Mother and Father to take a drug test or for the Department to enter

their home.

      According to the affidavit, the representative visited A.R. at the hospital on

August 24, 2021, and the representative was informed that Mother and Father had

communicated to the hospital that they had tested positive for COVID and that they

had not been to the hospital nor calling to check on A.R. A.R. was still on a breathing

machine at the hospital.

      The affidavit detailed Mother’s CPS history in Oklahoma as to a daughter that

was not Father’s child. The affidavit also detailed prior CPS history in Texas as to

another daughter Mother and Father shared, N.R. According to that affidavit, N.R.

was removed from Mother’s and Father’s custody due to Mother’s mental health

problems and Father’s methamphetamine use, their parental rights to N.R. were

terminated in December 2020 after Mother and Father did not successfully complete

all requirements of their service plan, and Mother and Father subsequently

relinquished their rights to N.R.

      The affidavit also stated that both parents had a criminal history. Father was

arrested in 2017 and convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon and

arrested in 2018 and convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana in an

amount less than two ounces and tampering/fabricating physical evidence with intent

to impair.

                                          4
      The representative’s affidavit stated the following:

      [Mother] has ongoing issues with her mental health that place [A.R.] in
      danger. She is inconsistent with receiving treatment. There is excessive
      history with the parents in the case from both Texas and Oklahoma that
      remains unresolved. [A.R.] was born at 27 weeks and is fragile. [Father]
      has [a] history of methamphetamine use that was not mitigated during
      the previous case where parental rights of both parents were terminated.
      The previous case was from 2019-December 2020. The parents have a
      history of domestic violence and drug use. The Department is asking to
      be named Temporary Managing Conservator of [A.R.], so he can have
      a safe and sober medical consenter and be placed in a safe environment
      when discharged.

      After a bench trial, the trial court signed a Final Order Affecting the Parent-

Child Relationship and Order for Termination and found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of Father’s parental rights and

that termination of his parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2). Father timely appealed.

                                  Evidence at Trial

Testimony of the Department’s Investigator

      An Investigator for the Department testified that he first received a call

regarding the case in early August 2021 and that the initial report he received was

regarding negligent supervision of A.R. by Mother and Father. The Investigator

testified that during his investigation he visited A.R. twice in the hospital and that

A.R., who was born two and a half months premature, was “on a breathing machine

and in a medical crib.” According to the Investigator, the hospital informed the

                                          5
Investigator that A.R. was stable, A.R. had “a lot of needs that needed to be met[,]”

and the hospital met those needs.

      The Investigator testified that when he first contacted Mother and Father at

their residence on August 9, 2021, the Investigator was not allowed to go into the

residence, and Mother and Father told the Investigator to leave the property.

According to the Investigator, Mother and Father “were pretty aggressive” and “not

willing to answer any questions[]” when the Investigator approached them, and they

questioned why the Department had a case because A.R. was in the NICU.

      A few weeks later and during the legal proceedings, the Investigator took

photographs inside a different residence where Mother and Father then lived, and

they told the Investigator that they hoped to bring A.R. home from the hospital to

that residence. The photographs were admitted into evidence. The Investigator

testified that the residence was not an appropriate place for a newborn baby.

According to the Investigator, there was an outdoor propane grill in the kitchen that

was a potential fire hazard, there was a microwave but no other cooktop, there was

no running water at the residence, there was drywall missing, wires were exposed,

there were no sleeping arrangements for A.R., and the home was unsanitary. The

Investigator testified that Mother and Father were not concerned about the exposed

wiring, lack of drywall, or the outdoor cooktop inside, but that they were attempting

                                         6
to repair the walls. On cross-examination, the Investigator admitted that he was not

aware that Father had moved out of the residence eight months prior to trial.

      The Investigator testified that Mother had a CPS history: two cases based in

Oklahoma and one case in Texas. The Texas case involved Mother and Father’s

daughter, N.R., and they had relinquished their parental rights to N.R. The

Investigator testified that when he asked Mother and Father to take a drug test,

Mother told the Investigator that the Department would have to get a court order in

order for Mother and Father to comply. According to the Investigator, he never

received a drug test from Mother or Father while he investigated the case. The

Investigator testified that although there was no information suggesting there was a

drug issue relating to A.R.’s birth, he requested the drug tests due to “[p]ast history.”

Testimony of the Department Caseworker

      The Department Caseworker testified that she worked with Mother and Father

regarding the family plan of service. The Caseworker testified that the Department

had temporary custody of A.R. for at least nine months. According to the

Caseworker, after A.R. was discharged she continued to inform Mother and Father

about A.R.’s medical issues, and the Department never directed Mother and Father

that they could not attend A.R.’s doctor visits. The Caseworker testified that she

heard Father’s testimony that he was at work during one of A.R.’s doctor’s visits,

but the Caseworker attended the appointment with A.R. that day and testified that

                                           7
she saw Father in the vicinity dropping Mother off for the appointment and later she

saw Mother getting into Father’s car after the appointment. The Caseworker testified

that for another appointment the pediatrician had a policy due to COVID and the

facility’s treatment of premature babies that only one person could attend the

appointment with A.R. Because Mother and Father “were not the medical

consenters[]” at the time, Mother and Father were not allowed at the appointment.

      According to the Caseworker, the visits she observed between A.R. and

Mother and Father did not go well as to Mother because Mother was “verbally

aggressive” during many of the visits, and Mother and Father would argue with one

another in A.R.’s presence. Once Mother and Father informed the Caseworker that

they had decided that when A.R. returned home Father would be working full-time

and Mother would be A.R.’s primary caretaker, the Department set up additional

supervised visits for Mother to have alone with A.R. The Caseworker testified that

she observed visits between Father and A.R. during the case and Father was

appropriate with A.R., fed A.R., changed A.R.’s diaper, and there was nothing she

observed during those visits that indicated that Father was unable to care for A.R.

      The Caseworker testified that during visits between Mother and Father and

A.R. dating back to the beginning of the case, the Caseworker could smell smoke on

Mother and Father, and the Caseworker continued to smell smoke on both of them

during visits through January or February. The Caseworker testified that she

                                         8
frequently would remind Mother and Father that they were not to smoke around A.R.

and that A.R. cannot be exposed to second- or third-hand smoke. Despite being

reminded, Mother and Father continued to smoke. The Caseworker testified that at

some point she learned that Mother and Father decided to vape instead, so the

Caseworker provided documentation from A.R.’s pediatrician stating that A.R. was

not to be around any type of smoke whether it was first-, second-, or third-hand, but

Mother and Father did not quit vaping. The Caseworker testified that she witnessed

Mother and Father vaping in the parking lot before and after their visits with A.R.

and that the Caseworker told them that was not appropriate, but Mother and Father

continued to vape before A.R.’s visits until April or May of 2022. The Caseworker

acknowledged that she did not stop any of the visits when Mother and Father smelled

of smoke, and she did not observe A.R. agitated or crying during those visits.

      According to the Caseworker, the family plan of service required Father to

complete various services. In November 2021, February 2022, and July 2022 she

obtained service authorizations for Father to have a drug and alcohol assessment,

and those service authorizations were admitted into evidence. According to the

Caseworker, at the time of trial, Father had not completed his service plan for the

domestic violence issues in this case, and he had not completed the drug assessments

and classes.

                                         9
      The Caseworker testified that she believed it was in A.R.’s best interest for

Father’s parental rights as to A.R. to be terminated. According to the Caseworker,

her belief was based on the fact that Father was still legally married to Mother, Father

did not have a plan to take care of A.R. due to Father’s work, and Father did not

have a plan financially to take care of A.R. and meet A.R.’s needs, and based on

Father’s CPS history. The Caseworker testified that Father had drug issues in the

CPS case involving his daughter, N.R., and that those drug issues have not been

resolved in A.R.’s CPS case. The Caseworker testified she had concerns about

Mother and Father’s visits with A.R. when Mother and Father were verbally abusive

towards each other in front of A.R., concerns about Mother being around A.R. if

Father’s parental rights were not terminated because she believed Mother was still

involved with Father, and concerns that she had not observed that Father had

exhibited the ability to meet A.R.’s special needs. The Caseworker testified that she

had asked Father during the CPS case if he had names of placement options for A.R.

but Father could not provide the Caseworker any names, and the first time the

Caseworker had been given the names of Tyler, Oscar, Sherry, and David as possible

placements for A.R. was during Father’s testimony at trial.

Testimony of Dr. Victor Love

      Dr. Victor Love testified that in this case the Department requested that he

provide individual therapy for Father starting in March 2022. At the time of trial in

                                          10
September 2022, Dr. Love was still treating Father. According to            Love, he

counseled Mother and Father together as a couple for fifteen sessions starting in

February 2022, but those sessions ended when the couple separated in mid-June. Dr.

Love testified that although he was not provided a lot of detail about A.R.’s special

needs, it was Dr. Love’s general understanding that A.R. needed physical and speech

therapy and suffered from lung conditions and other conditions or developmental

delays.

      Dr. Love testified that the goals for Father’s therapy treatment plan were to

discuss the issues that led to CPS intervention, discuss Mother and Father’s marital

relationship and to try to make improvements with that, to discuss Mother’s and

Father’s prior CPS history, and “to discuss their use of nicotine and other substances

that created problems for them [and] for their medically fragile son.” According to

Dr. Love, Mother and Father denied having a substance abuse problem, but it was

discussed “from time to time . . . [b]ecause they had a history of using, and it was

one of the things that the Department was concerned about.” Dr. Love testified that

Father said that the Department claimed he was not visiting his son enough while

his son was in the hospital and that the Department termed that as neglectful

supervision. Father denied that he was neglectful and claimed there was a “24/7

nanny cam” where Father could check on A.R. if he did not come to the hospital.

                                         11
      Father reported past use of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, alcohol, synthetic

marijuana, and “sort of a combination of meth[amphetamine] and ecstasy.” Father

reported that he stopped using everything but marijuana in 2019, but he admitted

using marijuana until the case started. Father told Dr. Love that he had started drug

use when he was an adolescent, that he had received substance abuse services in a

prior CPS case, and that Father began outpatient substance abuse treatment with

regard to this case the month prior to trial after he completed a drug assessment. Dr.

Love also testified that, to his knowledge, Father did not seek substance abuse help

during the pendency of the case until the month before trial. During the therapy

sessions they discussed the detrimental effect of cigarette smoking or vaping or other

types of smoking on A.R., who had a fragile medical condition.

      Dr. Love stated that Mother and Father discussed domestic violence between

them during their therapy sessions, but that Dr. Love thought that Father did not take

the domestic violence with Mother very seriously. Dr. Love testified that from the

therapy sessions it appeared that Mother was the aggressor in the domestic

relationship. Dr. Love described Mother and Father’s relationship as a married

couple at times as “silly, immature, and . . . quite conflictual.” According to Dr.

Love, he and Father discussed the fact that Mother had relinquished her parental

rights to A.R. and that, although Father seemed troubled by that fact, he “came to

understand that it was a good choice.”

                                         12
      Dr. Love testified he discussed with Father the need for Father to set up

consistent day care for A.R. so Father could work full-time as a single father and

that Father’s finances needed to be in order for him to be able to care for and support

A.R. According to Dr. Love, Father told him that he had friends who could provide

day care or babysit and that he intended to pursue day care through government

assistance, Father “didn’t see that there was much he had to do[,]” and Father felt

confident that he could care for A.R. Dr. Love testified that he believed Father had

been continuously employed during the seven months of treatment prior to trial, but

that Father had changed jobs and had four different employers during that time

period in addition to an ongoing side job as a mechanic.

      According to Dr. Love, Father reported having “seizures” periodically that

were precipitated by either anxiety or stress, and Father reported that he suffered

from “calcium deposits” throughout his body that he called “bone cancers[.]” Dr.

Love testified that the seizures could be concerning. Father reported he had an

appointment with a neurologist to address the seizures, but Dr. Love did not know

whether Father attended the appointment. Father reported having his last seizure

right after A.R.’s birth, when A.R. was in the NICU.

      According to Dr. Love, Father had met the initial goals for therapy. Dr. Love

testified that a large amount of conflict for Father was his relationship with Mother

and that, since Father’s separation from Mother, Father reported being happier and

                                          13
less stressed. Based on Mother’s and Father’s financial struggles, Dr. Love felt like

Father could benefit with further sessions regarding budgeting so that he could be

more able to “demonstrate a lot more understanding and ability to be able to provide

his son with all the medical needs, treatment services that he has, and day care

because as a single dad, he needs to be working.” Dr. Love felt that subsequent goals

that he had for Father that had not yet been met were for Father to “further explore

his ability to manage his finances and truly understand clearly what it would take to

support himself and a child with - - particularly with a lot of medical needs and

appointments and day care.”

Father’s Testimony

      Father testified that at the time of trial, his son, A.R., was a year and three

months old. According to Father, A.R. was born premature with undeveloped lungs

and was in a fragile medical condition. Father testified that A.R. was in the hospital

for three or four months after his birth and Father visited A.R. at the hospital

regularly. According to Father, the Investigator told him when A.R. was released

from the hospital and removed to the Department’s custody that Father was no

longer allowed to know anything about A.R.

      Father testified that he had a six-year-old daughter with another woman with

whom he shared custody, and he visited that daughter every weekend. He also had a

three-year-old daughter, N.R., with Mother, he relinquished his parental rights to

                                         14
N.R. less than two years before this trial, and his parental rights to N.R. were

terminated while he was still married to Mother. According to Father, he

relinquished his parental rights as to N.R. because he was unstable at the time and

“was in between houses.” Father testified that since the start of this case he has had

two different full-time jobs: a fast-food restaurant where he worked for eight months

and at a warehouse where he has worked for two months. Father testified that he did

not know the name of his current employer at the warehouse, but that he provided

the Caseworker proof of employment that identified his employer, and he worked

Monday through Friday from “[e]ight to five.”

      Father testified that at the time of trial, “[s]adly[]” he was still married to

Mother. He had filed for divorce in June 2020 during his CPS case regarding his

daughter, N.R. According to Father, he filled out the petition himself and the

document asked what visitation Mother should have and he responded that Mother

should have zero contact because she was “unfit.” Father admitted he had

nonetheless stayed together with Mother despite believing she was unfit and then

they had another child, A.R. Father testified that at the time of trial he and Mother

were separated because she relinquished her parental rights to A.R. and she

committed adultery. Father testified that since the start of trial he no longer was in

contact with Mother. Father admitted that in the other CPS case with N.R., their

                                         15
daughter, he and Mother had domestic disputes and two of the disputes were physical

with Mother being the aggressor.

      Father testified that in this case his service plan required him to complete a

Batterers Intervention Prevention Program because the domestic violence between

him and Mother was still an issue for the Department. According to Father, he did

not remember completing that program or getting a certificate for completing the

program. Father also testified that the Department had concerns in this case that he

had a drug issue, and his service plan required him to do a drug and alcohol

assessment, but he waited and did not complete the assessment until the month

before trial. At the time of trial, he had started sessions relating to that assessment

but had not completed them, and the drug and alcohol assessment that he completed

in this case indicated he needed more classes despite him completing a drug and

alcohol program during the case relating to his daughter with Mother. Father testified

he had been working on his drug treatment program for about a month and only had

a couple of weeks left, and with the program he had three individual and three group

sessions a week.

      Father admitted he did not have a valid Texas driver’s license because he was

“in the process of paying it[,]” and his license had not been valid for a number of

years. Father testified that the impediment to him getting a driver’s license was that

he received a speeding ticket “about a year ago that [he was] currently paying off.”

                                          16
Father testified that he suffered from nonepileptic seizures that caused him to “black

out[,]” that he last suffered one of these seizures at the beginning of this case and

had to go to the emergency room, and he has not been prescribed medicine because

his appointment with a neurologist was not for a few more months. According to

Father, he waited to take care of the neurological problem because it took him some

time to “get on insurance.”

      Father admitted that during this case he had acknowledged having a drug or

alcohol problem. Father testified that the most recent Narcotics Anonymous or

Alcoholics Anonymous session he attended was the Saturday of the week of trial

and that he had an NA sponsor in the previous case but did not have a sponsor at the

time of trial. Father testified that CPS asked him to drug test every two or three

months during this case and that he has been drug free since the start of the case. On

cross-examination, Father admitted that he had tested positive for marijuana in

October 2021 after this case had started, but he said he tested positive because

“Delta-8 is not illegal, but it’s still positive as marijuana or THC[]” on a drug test.

Father acknowledged that A.R.’s medical condition required A.R. to not be around

smoke, and Father testified that he quit smoking cigarettes in January 2022 and quit

vaping in April 2022. According to Father, he did not know for some time that A.R.

should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, and he did not know for some time

that vaping around A.R. could cause him harm.

                                          17
      Father characterized A.R.’s medical condition as “special needs[]” and

although Father said he was not completely informed of A.R.’s needs, he understood

that A.R. was going to always have special needs, needed to be on a special diet

prepared at home “from scratch[,]” had many doctor’s appointments, had physical

therapy once a week, and needed a “practically germ-free environment.” Father

testified he could provide a practically germ-free environment in his current home

because he was “pretty well a germ freak[.]” Father admitted he had never had sole

custody or raised a child as a single parent. He testified that he or his brother could

take A.R. to his weekly physical therapy appointments even if it meant taking off

from work. Father testified his current warehouse employment was forty hours per

week making between $3000 and $4000 a month. He testified he also has a side job

as a mechanic. He testified his rent was $1000 a month plus utilities.

      Father planned on putting A.R. in day care while Father worked but he did not

know the cost of day care because he had not found one yet that he liked. He found

one day care that could accommodate A.R.’s special needs that was $215 a week,

but Father did not like that day care, and the other day care centers he looked into

for A.R. cost from $150 to $300 per week. Father testified that if A.R. was sick or

unable to go to day care, Father had family – “Tyler, Oscar, [Father’s] adoptive

mother Charity, [Father’s] adopted brother David[]” – with whom A.R. could stay

in the area. Father admitted those individuals had never met A.R.

                                          18
      Father testified he lived in an RV that had one bedroom, two bunk beds, one

bathroom, and working utilities. Father testified that he had a crib, car seat, stroller,

toys, and clothes at his RV for A.R. According to Father, the Court Appointed

Special Advocate, the ad litem, and another person came to visit his current home

once, but he did not think anyone from CPS came to look at it. He acknowledged

that the RV he was living in at the time of trial was a different trailer from the one

where he initially lived earlier in the case.

      According to Father, over the last two years he had suffered from six or seven

seizures, his most recent seizure was eight months prior to trial, and the seizures

were caused by stress. Father testified that he worked with Dr. Love on coping

mechanisms and reducing stress. Father testified that he believed he had addressed

his domestic violence issues in this case, but he admitted that he did not use Batterers

Intervention Prevention Program or any other source on a regular basis.

Testimony of A.R.’s Foster Mother

      A.R.’s Foster Mother (Foster Mother) testified she was notified about A.R. on

October 26, 2021, and she visited him at the NICU at Memorial Hermann every day

until he was discharged, and A.R. came home with her on November 1, 2021. Foster

Mother testified that on October 26th her understanding of A.R.’s diagnosis was

“bronchopulmonary dysplasia so extremely weak lungs[,]” a minor brain bleed, a

valve problem in his heart where his valve had not sealed completely, retinopathy of

                                           19
prematurity so he did not have complete use of his eyesight, and he was severely

underweight.

       Foster Mother testified that she and her husband participated in training at the

hospital during that week on how to care for A.R. before she was allowed to leave

the NICU with A.R., and she and her husband had to do an overnight stay as well.

According to Foster Mother, on the recommendation of A.R.’s doctor, A.R. was put

on a strict diet and feeding schedule when discharged, and Foster Mother had to

make puree at home from a mixture of protein, fat, and carbs in order to keep A.R.’s

weight up and use a lot of herbs to help with A.R.’s acid reflux and indigestion

issues. Foster mother testified that A.R. was required to continue that diet to stay the

proper weight. Foster Mother testified as follows regarding A.R.’s medical condition

at the time of trial:

       The lung problem is still persistent. He no longer has the eye issues or
       the heart problems. We have not had to see a follow-up with cardiology.
       That could change as he gets older. The brain bleed we will not see
       whether or not that had an effect on his life until he starts going to
       school. That could cause mental delays in his education and then he is
       finally no longer considered a high-risk weight category as of a week
       ago. So he’s finally stable weight as of last week.

According to Foster Mother, A.R. saw a physical therapist every two weeks and she

or her husband facilitated A.R.’s at-home physical therapy on average six out of

seven days a week. Foster Mother explained that A.R. needed physical therapy

because he had abnormal movement patterns because of being premature, and the

                                          20
physical therapy helped “unteach” incorrect patterns. Foster Mother explained that

recent at-home therapy required both her and her husband to assist because A.R. had

gotten older and bigger. Foster Mother testified she had seen physical improvement

with A.R. and, based on information from his therapist, Foster Mother believed A.R.

would continue physical therapy until he was old enough to attend school. Foster

Mother testified that she also monitored A.R.’s hydroceles, or excess fluid in his

testicles which put him at a higher risk of hernias in the groin area. Foster Mother

testified that, in addition to the physical therapy at home, A.R. usually had four or

five medical or therapeutic appointments each month. Foster Mother explained that

although A.R. was not considered “special needs” because he had no mental delay,

there were still long-term concerns for A.R. because his lungs were weaker than the

average child, “he’s always at a higher risk of wheezing and aspirating, and then also

his brain bleed could come back to cause issues later.” Foster Mother testified that

when they first met with A.R.’s doctor, the doctor told Foster Mother that A.R. could

not be exposed to smoke or air irritants. According to Foster Mother, A.R. was

behind physically, verbally, and cognitively, and his preventative care would be

“very long-term[.]” Foster Mother testified that A.R. was “hypoallergenic” and had

severe acid reflux. Foster Mother testified she and her husband were an “adoption-

eligible household[,]” and they wanted to adopt A.R. if his parents’ parental rights

were terminated.

                                         21
Testimony of the Court-Appointed Special Advocate

      The Court-Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) testified that she was

appointed August 29, 2021, she visited Father’s home, and she found the home to

be appropriate for A.R. with no issues regarding cleanliness. She testified she saw a

car seat but did not see a crib or any clothing for a child at the home. The CASA

testified that she observed visits between Mother and Father and A.R. and, although

some visits were appropriate, the interaction between Mother and Father during

some visits was not appropriate and Mother would “burst out and leave and [Father]

would stay with [A.R.] by himself.”

      According to the CASA, A.R. needs a different level of care than a normal

one-and-a-half-year-old or two-year-old and

      [h]e needs all the things that [the foster parents] are doing for him to be
      able to continue to progress because he’s got all the development issues
      and lung issues. I don’t think that if it was for the hard work they’ve
      put into helping him, he would be where he’s at right now.

When asked whether she thought Father had the ability to do the things that she

observes A.R.’s foster parents doing with A.R., the CASA responded that although

she had observed the visits between Father and A.R., Father appeared connected

with A.R. but there had not been enough interaction for her to say confidently that

Father had the ability to do all the things Foster Mother does for A.R. The CASA

was concerned that Father had not completely addressed his drug problem and his

domestic violence issues. The CASA felt that all the things in Father’s service plan
                                          22
were necessary for him to be able to obtain A.R. back, and the CASA was concerned

that Father did not complete his service plan. The CASA was also concerned that

Father continued to smoke or vape for many months after he was asked to stop, and

that even after Father made assurances he would stop, the CASA saw Father

continuing to smoke or vape. According to the CASA, she was not in agreement

with a monitored return home to Father, but she also was not completely in

agreement with the Department’s request to terminate Father’s parental rights. She

did not believe it was in A.R.’s best interest to live with Father, and she believed it

was in A.R.’s best interest to stay with his foster parents.

Other Evidence

      The Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights to the

Department of Family and Protective Services executed by Father in 2020 as to his

daughter with Mother was admitted into evidence. The order terminating Mother’s

and Father’s parental rights to their daughter, N.R., in 2020 was also admitted into

evidence. A copy of Father’s petition for divorce filed in 2020 wherein he alleged

Mother “should have zero contact” with their daughter because “she [was] unfit”

was admitted into evidence. The court-ordered family service plan was admitted into

evidence, and it required Father to obtain and maintain appropriate housing;

demonstrate the ability to obtain/maintain employment; participate in parenting

classes; obtain a drug assessment and follow all recommendations; participate in

                                          23
therapy in order to demonstrate his ability to provide for A.R. with care and nurture;

participate and complete services to address domestic violence in order to learn the

ability to avoid domestic violence; complete a psychological evaluation and follow

all recommendations by the psychologist; and develop a larger group of family and

friends for support. The status hearing order was also admitted into evidence.

                                 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). 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); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d at 84.

      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) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). We assume the

factfinder resolved the disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder

                                           24
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 17, 25

(Tex. 2002)). “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.” Id. In cases tried to the bench, the trial court in its

role as factfinder determines the credibility and weight of the witnesses’ testimony

and resolves any inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence. See Webb v. Crawley,

590 S.W.3d 570, 578 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2019, no pet.); In re R.J., 568 S.W.3d

734, 754 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). Only one statutory

ground under section 161.001(b) is required to terminate parental rights. See In re

Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Tex. 2019). “All evidentiary standards, including

clear and convincing evidence, recognize the relevance of circumstantial evidence.”

In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 589 (Tex. 2015); see also In re R.H.W. III, 542 S.W.3d

724, 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).

                                            25
                                      Analysis

      In his first issue, Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence under the

predicate finding of subsection E. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E). In

his second issue, Father argues that his family service plan was ambiguous and did

not give him the notice required under the statute, and therefore, subsection O cannot

serve as a ground for terminating his parental rights. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

      For purposes of subsection E, endangerment means to expose the child to loss

or injury or to jeopardize a child’s emotional or physical health. Id. §

161.001(b)(1)(E); In re M.L.L., 573 S.W.3d 353, 363 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no

pet.). Termination under subsection E requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious

course of conduct by the parent. In re M.L.L., 573 S.W.3d at 363-64. A parent’s

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

emotional or physical well-being of a child. Id. at 363. Endangerment is not limited

to actions directed toward the child and includes the parent’s actions before the

child’s birth and while the parent had custody of older children. In re J.O.A., 283

S.W.3d at 345. Abusive or violent conduct by a parent may also produce a home

environment that endangers a child’s well-being. In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

      In addition, a pattern of drug abuse will also support a finding of conduct

endangering a child even if there is no evidence that such drug use actually injured

                                         26
the child. Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 189,

196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). A history of illegal drug use

is conduct that subjects a child to a life that is uncertain and unstable, endangering

the child’s physical and emotional well-being. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351, 361-

62 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (parent’s drug use may

qualify as a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct endangering the

child’s well-being); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs.,

221 S.W.3d 244, 253-54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (en banc).

A parent’s drug use, incidents of domestic violence, and employment and housing

instability prior to and during the case create a course of conduct from which the

factfinder may determine the parent endangered the child’s emotional and physical

well-being. See In re N.F., No. 09-19-00435-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3650, at

*66 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 30, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.). “[N]eglect can

be just as dangerous to the well-being of a child as direct physical abuse.” In re M.C.,

917 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex. 1996). A parent who continually exposes the child to

unsanitary living conditions, continued uncleanliness, and the lack of attention to

medical needs is evidence of endangering environment. See id. at 269-70. In

addition, a court may consider a parent’s failure to complete a service plan as part

of its analysis of endangering conduct. See In re N.F., 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3650,

at *67.

                                          27
      The record demonstrates that A.R. was born premature at twenty-seven

weeks, and hospital notes in A.R.’s chart do not indicate his parents ever visited him

in the hospital. Despite testimony that there was a “24/7 nanny cam” at the hospital

that Father could watch, the affidavit attached to the petition noted that A.R.’s

parents had failed to call and check on A.R. at the hospital. The record also

demonstrates that Father relinquished his parental rights to an older child with

Mother, he did not complete his service plan in that case, and that his parental rights

were terminated as to that child in 2020. Father had a criminal history and a history

of methamphetamine use that was not mitigated during the previous CPS case where

his parental rights were terminated.

      Although at trial Father testified that he was in a different RV, photographs of

the home where he and Mother had intended to live when A.R. was born and which

were from the beginning of the case were admitted into evidence and the Investigator

testified as to the potential hazards in the home and that it was unsanitary, had no

running water, and was not appropriate for a newborn baby. Father admitted during

the case he had a previous drug problem. The trial court heard the Investigator’s

testimony that while he investigated the case Father did not take a drug test despite

the Investigator’s request for drug testing. A parent’s refusal to submit to drug testing

may be considered as evidence that he or she is continuing to abuse drugs. In re

O.G.H.D., No. 09-21-00172-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8002, at *28 (Tex. App.—

                                           28
Beaumont Sept. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re T.R.L., No. 10-14-00290-

CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2178, at *14 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 5, 2015, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (“A factfinder may reasonably infer from a parent’s refusal to take a drug

test that the parent was using drugs.”); In re C.R., 263 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2008, no pet.) (trial court could reasonably infer parent avoided taking drug

tests because she was using drugs)). Father admitted that he had tested positive for

marijuana in October 2021(after this case was filed). Dr. Love testified that Father

had reported past use of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, alcohol, synthetic marijuana,

and “sort of a combination of meth[amphetamine] and ecstasy.” Dr. Love testified

that Father reported he was still using marijuana until this case began. The trial court

also heard the Caseworker testify that despite her obtaining service authorizations

earlier in the case, Father did not have a drug assessment until a month before trial.

Although Father denied using drugs at the time of trial, the trial court heard Father’s

testimony that he had a history of using drugs, he did not complete the drug treatment

required by the family service plan, and he did not have an NA sponsor.

      The trial court heard the extensive medical needs of A.R. and that the care

required for his special needs would extend into the future. The trial court heard that

any kind of smoke exposure to A.R. was detrimental to A.R.’s health due to A.R.’s

weak lungs, and that despite constant instructions to Father to stop smoking or

vaping he continued to do so during the case. The trial court heard testimony that

                                          29
A.R. required a “practically germ-free environment” for health reasons, and

photographs of Father’s residence at the beginning of the case were admitted into

evidence, and even though Father had moved into another RV by the time of trial,

the trial court could have concluded from the earlier photographs that Father was

unable to consistently provide a sanitary environment for A.R. The Caseworker

testified that Father did not have a plan to care for A.R. while Father worked, nor

did he have a plan of how he could care for A.R. and his special needs. The trial

court heard testimony that Father suffered from seizures that caused him to “black

out[,]” that the seizures were brought on by stress, Father had suffered a seizure since

A.R.’s birth, and, as of the time of trial, Father had not yet seen a neurologist. The

trial court also heard testimony from Father that he or his brother would take A.R.

to any necessary medical appointments but also heard testimony that Father and his

brother both worked.

      The trial court heard testimony that Father had not completed items required

in the family service plan, such as substance abuse treatment and completion of

services related to domestic violence issues. The trial court heard evidence that

during the case Father had changed housing and employment and the trial court

could have considered all of this when assessing Father’s stability. Father testified

that he relinquished his rights to his daughter, N.R., in the prior CPS case because

he was “unstable” then and “was in between houses.” The trial court heard Dr. Love

                                          30
testify that he felt Father needed further sessions regarding budgeting and being able

to demonstrate that he could be able to care for A.R. while being a working, single

Father. Despite Father’s testimony that he could financially provide for A.R., the

trial court also heard Father’s testimony that he had not obtained a valid Texas

driver’s license in over a year because of a speeding ticket he was working to pay

off and he had not seen a neurologist for his seizures because he was waiting to

obtain insurance.

      The trial court heard testimony that Father was still legally married to Mother

at the time of trial and that he fathered another child with Mother, despite feeling

she was an unfit mother and despite the fact she was abusive towards Father. Father

testified that there was a history of domestic abuse between him and Mother, and

Dr. Love testified that he did not feel Father was serious about addressing the

domestic violence with Mother. The trial court heard the Caseworker’s testimony

that she had concerns about Mother being around A.R. if Father’s parental rights

were not terminated because she believed Mother was still involved with Father, and

concerns that she had not observed that Father had exhibited the ability to meet

A.R.’s special needs.

      The trial court heard the Caseworker’s testimony that she believed it was in

A.R.’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated and the CASA’s

testimony that she did not believe it was in A.R.’s best interest at the time of trial to

                                           31
live with Father. The trial court also heard the CASA state she was also not sure that

termination of the Father’s rights was in the best interest of the child, and the CASA

believed it was in the child’s best interest to remain in the care of the foster parents.

      Deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations and reviewing all the

evidence in the light most favorable to the finding under subsection E, as we must,

the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that Father’s

conduct endangered A.R.’s well-being. We conclude that the Department

established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father committed the predicate

act enumerated in subsection E. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E).

Further, considering the entire record, we conclude the disputed evidence the trial

court could not reasonably have credited in favor of its endangerment finding is not

so significant that the court could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or

conviction that the finding under subsection E is true. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at

266. We overrule issue one.

      In issue two, Father contends that his service plan was not sufficiently specific

to support termination of his parental rights under subsection O. Under subsection

O, “[t]he court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court

finds by clear and convincing evidence: [the parent] failed to comply with the

provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the

parent to obtain the return of the child[.]” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

                                           32
“The department . . . must write the service plan in a manner that is clear and

understandable to the parent in order to facilitate the parent’s ability to follow the

requirements of the service plan.” Id. § 263.102(d). “Because a trial court must

necessarily decide that a court order is sufficiently specific for the parent to comply

before terminating a parent’s rights under section 161.001(b)(1)(O), a trial court

cannot terminate parental rights for failure to comply without first considering the

order’s specificity.” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 239 (Tex. 2019).

      Father argues that his service plan did not specifically require him to complete

drug classes or complete a batterer’s intervention program (or other domestic

violence prevention program). As to these tasks, the family service plan outlined the

following requirements for Father in relevant part 3:

      Substance Abuse/Use

      ....

      Required Action:

      SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
      [Father] will obtain a drug assessment to evaluate his need for treatment
      associated with substance abuse issues. [Father] will have to follow
      recommendations made by the provider. . . .

      ....

      Intimate Partner Violence

      3
        The family service plan noted on each page of these requirements that “*All
services must be completed by the commencement of trial[.]*”
                                        33
      ....

      Required Action:

      BIPP/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM
      [Father] will actively participate and complete in specialized services
      to address domestic violence. He will need to learn the ability of
      avoiding domestic violence. [Father] will provide the caseworker
      original certificate of completion.

Regarding these tasks, Father testified at trial as follows:

      [Department’s Counsel]: . . . . And so in your family plan of service,
                              the Department asked for you to complete a
                              BIPP program, Batterers Intervention
                              Prevention Program, correct?

      [Father]:                  I believe so.

      [Department’s Counsel]: All right. And you did not do that, correct?

      [Father]:                  I can’t recall. I’ve done a lot for CPS. So I
                                 can’t recall whether I’ve completed it or not.

      [Department’s Counsel]: Okay. So . . . you don’t know if you’ve ever
                              done a BIPP program?

      [Father]:                  Yeah. I have no idea.

      [Department’s Counsel]: Okay. So you don’t know if you’ve done a
                              program that particularly and only addressed
                              your issues as a victim in domestic violence?

      [Father]:                  I don’t think I have.

      [Department’s Counsel]: Okay. And you would have gotten a
                              certificate from that. So did you ever get a
                              certificate --

      [Father]:                  No.
                                          34
....

[Department’s Counsel]: . . . . So do you have any remembrance of the
                        fact that the judge ordered you to do the
                        services that were in the family plan of
                        service?

[Father]:                Yes, ma’am.

[Department’s Counsel]: You realize that a violation of that would be
                        very serious and could create a situation
                        where your rights would be restricted or
                        terminated?

[Father]:                Yes, ma’am.

[Department’s Counsel]: Did you understand that since you were here
                        at every hearing?

[Father]:                Yes, ma’am.

....

[Department’s Counsel]: And you didn’t do BIPP at all, correct?

[Father]:                Yes, ma’am.

....

[Department’s Counsel]: . . . . And so even though you waited all this
                        time to do your drug and alcohol assessment,
                        you did start some sessions?

[Father]:                Yes, ma’am.

[Department’s Counsel]: But you’re not done, are you?

[Father]:                I’m already halfway through.

[Department’s Counsel]: Okay. But you’re not done today?
                                 35
      [Father]:                 No.

      ....

      [Department’s Counsel]: [T]he drug and alcohol assessment that you
                              took in August of this year indicated that you
                              needed more help, correct?

      [Father]:                 I’m guessing.

      [Department’s Counsel]: Well, you’re going to classes, aren’t you?

      [Father]:                 Yes, ma’am.

The status hearing order that was admitted into evidence and that was entered earlier

in the case included the following finding:

      The Court finds that [Father] has reviewed and understands the service
      plan and has been advised that unless he is willing and able to provide
      the child with a safe environment, even with the assistance of a service
      plan, within the reasonable period of time specified in the plan, his
      parental and custodial duties and rights may be subject to restriction or
      to termination or the child may not be returned to him.

Father testified that his service plan required him to do a drug and alcohol

assessment. At the time of trial, he had started sessions relating to that assessment

but had not completed them, and the drug and alcohol assessment that he completed

in this case indicated he needed more classes despite him completing a previous drug

and alcohol program during the other case relating to his daughter with Mother.

Father testified he had been working on his drug treatment program for about a

month and only had a couple of weeks left, and with the program he had three

individual and three group sessions a week.
                                         36
       On this record, the family service plan specifically established that Father was

required to follow the recommendations after the drug assessment (which testimony

established included drug classes), and the service plan specifically established that

Father was required to complete a batterer’s intervention prevention program or

other domestic violence prevention program. Father testified that he did not

complete the drug classes and did not complete a batterer’s intervention program.

We overrule issue two. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(O); In re N.G.,

577 S.W.3d at 239. Having overruled Appellant’s issues on appeal, 4 we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

       AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                         LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                               Justice

Submitted on January 24, 2023
Opinion Delivered February 9, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

       4
            On appeal, Father does not challenge the trial court’s finding as to best
interest.
                                           37