Court Opinion

ID: 9953959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 08:11:51.603114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:57.155236
License: Public Domain

In the
             Court of Appeals
     Second Appellate District of Texas
              at Fort Worth
           ___________________________
                No. 02-23-00367-CV
           ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF H.S., B.S., AND M.S., CHILDREN

      On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
                Parker County, Texas
           Trial Court No. CIV-22-0621

       Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
         Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      K.S. (Mother) and C.S. (Father) separately appeal from the trial court’s order

terminating their parental rights to their three children—H.S. (Henry), B.S. (Beth),

and M.S. (Mary)—and appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services

as the children’s permanent managing conservator.1 In this ultra-accelerated appeal,2

Mother raises ten points, and Father raises eight points. We will affirm.

          I. Events Leading to the Children’s Removal From the Home
                  and to the Parental-Rights-Termination Trial

      Mother and Father started dating when she was 16 years old. He was 24. In

May 2014, when Mother was 18 years old, she gave birth to Henry. Mother and

Father got married that July. Beth was born in December 2016, and Mary was born in

September 2019.

A. The Department’s involvement, investigation, and removal

      During an argument in May 2022, Father picked Mother up by her throat and

slammed her down on top of his toolbox. He then hit the back of his head with a

      1
        We refer to the children using aliases and to other family members by their
relationship to the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P.
9.8(b)(2).
      2
        See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2,
subtit. F app. (requiring appellate court to dispose of appeal from judgment
terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice
of appeal is filed).

                                           2
hammer and slammed his head into a wall. The children were in the house at the

time,3 and Henry witnessed the incident.

      This was not the first time Father had engaged in self-harm or attempted

suicide while the children were in the home:

          • Several years earlier, Father drove his vehicle toward a mobile home as if
            he were going to drive into it, but he stopped short before hitting it.
            Father was upset because Mother had witnessed Father’s then-12-year-
            old son, who was living with them at the time, inappropriately touching
            other children, and she had reported the incident to law enforcement.4
            The children were in the house at the time of Father’s actions.5

          • When Mary was nine months old, Mother told Father during an
            argument that she wanted a divorce. Father responded by grabbing a gun
            and threatening to shoot himself. The children were in the house at the
            time. Mother wrestled the gun away from Father because she was afraid
            the gun would go off and one of the children would be hit.

          • During another argument, Father pulled a knife and threatened to stab
            himself while the children were in the home.

          • Father threatened to hang himself after another argument. He put a rope
            around his neck while the couple was in their bedroom. Mother had to
            remove the noose. The children were at home at the time but were not
            in the bedroom.

          • Father slammed his head on a countertop. The children were in the
            house playing at the time.

      3
       The family lived in a single-wide mobile home.

      At trial, Father denied that he was trying to run the car into the mobile home.
      4

He characterized the event as his vehicle spinning out toward the structure.
      5
       It is unclear from the trial testimony whether the mobile home Father was
driving toward was the family’s home or another mobile home, although the jury
could have inferred the former from Mother’s testimony.

                                           3
          • Mother and Father got into an argument while they were working on the
            backside of their home’s exterior. Father threatened to shoot himself
            with a nail gun. The children were playing in the front yard at the time.

      Mother claimed that she had left Father after each incident. After the May

2022 incident, Mother left again and took the children to her mother’s house.

Mother’s best friend later took Mother to file a police report. An application for a

protective order against Father was filed, 6 and a warrant was issued for Father’s arrest.

      Because of Father’s assaulting Mother, the Department opened a case and

assigned it to Stephen Seyfried, an investigator with the Department. Seyfried

contacted Mother, who had taken the children to Missouri to stay with her father, to

make sure that she was okay. Mother told Seyfried that she was afraid of Father

because his “violence against her had increased and had reached a new level and [that]

she was very fearful for her safety and the safety of her children.” She also told

Seyfried that Father’s behavior had become more erratic and that he had threatened to

commit suicide in front of the children. She was worried that “he could take a turn

      6
         In addition to detailing the May 2022 assault, the protective-order application
contained allegations about Father’s past behavior: in July 2021, Father had threatened
to kill anyone who took Mother away from him, and in April 2022, Father had “talked
about going on a mass[-]murder spree.” The application further stated that all three
children were present during these events and listed the weapons that were involved: a
shovel, knives, ropes, a hammer, and a frying pan. The protective-order application
was electronically signed by Mother, but at trial, she denied having applied for a
protective order. She speculated that her best friend, who does not like Father, filed
the application.

                                            4
and take his violence out against the kids.” At that time, Mother was not sure whether

she and the children would stay in Missouri or return to Texas.

      A few weeks later, however, Mother and the children returned to Texas. In July

2022, Seyfried met with them several times in their home. Mother again indicated that

she was afraid of Father. She recounted that she became involved in a relationship

with Father when she was 16 years old, and he was 24. She told Seyfried that she felt

that Father had been grooming her. She also accused Father of isolating her by not

allowing her to work outside the home and by having her homeschool the children so

that she would not be able to get a job. She believed that this was Father’s way of

limiting her ability to be independent from him. Mother also told Seyfried that

Father’s interest in pornography had caused problems in their marriage. She said that

Father had touched her “sexually and inappropriately in front of the children” and

that he had ignored her requests to stop.

      Mother also told Seyfried about the several instances in which Father had

engaged in self-harm and had attempted suicide. Mother said that the children had

been present for some of them. According to Mother, Father lacked behavioral limits,

and the fact that the children were present would not stop Father “from doing what

he’s going to do.”

      Henry told Seyfried that he had witnessed the May 2022 incident and said that

he was scared by what he saw. Beth told Seyfried that “her daddy had grabbed her

mama by the neck and [had] thrown her on the ground.” Beth also felt scared.

                                            5
Unprompted, Beth “pointed to [a] dresser that was against the wall, and she said that’s

the dresser that my daddy smashed his head on and there was blood everywhere.”

       Mother denied having any contact with Father since the May 2022 incident

other than when he made a surprise visit to the home on Father’s Day that year.

Mother briefly expressed a desire to drop the charges against Father and to reunify

with him. Seyfried responded by letting Mother know that allowing Father back in the

home would endanger the children and that the Department could remove the

children from the home for their safety. Mother said that she understood. According

to Seyfried, Mother insisted that she and Father were not getting back together and

that she wanted to divorce him. Mother told Seyfried that based on her and Father’s

relationship and where it was going, she believed that if she stayed with him, he would

eventually kill her. 7

       At that time, Mother “definitely wanted help” becoming independent from

Father. She had no job, vehicle, or childcare. She told Seyfried that she was already

getting help from her church. Seyfried provided her with a Parker County resource

guide and pointed her to specific places that she could have access to resources.

Although Mother recognized that she needed to be independent from Father and

       Although Seyfried repeatedly attempted to contact Father to get his
       7

perspective on what had happened, he could not contact Father at various telephone
numbers. Seyfried even referred the case to a special investigator, but the investigator
was also unable to track down Father.

                                           6
wanted to separate from him, she wanted couples counseling so that she and Father

could learn to coparent the children.

      Mother was adamant that she would not allow Father back into the home.

Based on these assurances, Seyfried did not seek to remove the children from the

home, and he thus closed his investigation.

      Because the Department believed that Father was a danger to the children but

wanted him to be able to come back home and eventually reunite with the family, the

case was referred to the Department’s Family-Based Safety Services (FBSS) in July

2022. 8 FBSS specialist Alyssa Bottlinger first met with Mother and the children in

their home in late August 2022 to conduct a family-strengths-and-needs assessment to

help identify what services the family needed.9 The initial meeting went well. Mother

was cooperative and told Bottlinger that she was concerned about how the domestic

violence was affecting the children and that she wanted counseling for herself and the

children. Mother also mentioned that Henry was being bullied at school but that she

had not addressed the issue with the school because she was still deciding how to

handle the situation.

      Bottlinger returned two weeks later with safety and family-service plans for

Mother to review and sign. The safety plan required Father’s contact with the children

      8
       FBSS’s goals are family reunification and preservation of the family unit.
      9
        Despite her best efforts and using special investigators, Bottlinger was never
able to locate or speak to Father.

                                           7
to be supervised by someone other than Mother. Bottlinger advised Mother that if the

safety plan was violated, the children could be removed. Mother said that she

understood and signed the safety plan. Bottlinger then presented Mother with the

family-service plan, which laid out counseling services, parenting classes, and

domestic-violence classes. The plan also noted the school-bullying issue and stated

that Mother had not addressed the situation with the school. Mother became upset

because, unbeknownst to Bottlinger, Mother had addressed the bullying issue with the

school sometime after Bottlinger’s first visit. Mother then accused Bottlinger of

falsifying the family-service plan. Bottlinger assured Mother that she would correct the

plan, but Mother was not satisfied and asked Bottlinger to leave. Bottlinger scheduled

another visit with Mother and the children, but a few days before the visit, Mother

called Bottlinger and told her that she would need a warrant or court order to come

on the property or to see Mother and the children.

      Bottlinger then asked law enforcement to perform a welfare check on Mother

and the children. On September 28, 2022, the law-enforcement officer conducting the

welfare check discovered that Father was back in the home with the children in

violation of the safety plan. The Department thus decided to remove the children.

      On September 29, 2022, the Department sued for conservatorship of the

children and to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to them. That same

day, the trial court signed an order appointing the Department as the children’s

                                           8
temporary conservator and appointing each parent a temporary attorney. The children

were removed from the parents on October 3, 2022, and placed into foster care.

      The day the children were removed, Father was arrested for the May

2022 assault. He was charged with misdemeanor assault and was released on bond.

That charge remained pending throughout the case and at the time of trial.

B. The parents’ service plans

      After the children’s removal, Monica Villegas, a permanency specialist (i.e.,

caseworker) with Our Community Our Kids (OCOK),10 was assigned to the case.

Villegas met with both parents at the beginning of the case to review their respective

service plans with them. These service plans included maintaining housing and

transportation; demonstrating the ability to care for themselves and the children;

attending scheduled visitation with the children; developing a support system;

submitting to random drug testing; accepting responsibility for the reasons for

removal; and attending and participating in various assessments, counseling sessions,

and classes to address issues such as substance abuse, anger management, mental

health, domestic violence, and parenting skills.

      10
         OCOK is a private provider of community-based care that contracts with the
Department to provide “foster care case management, kinship, and family
reunification services” in parts of the state, including Parker County. See Tex. Dep’t of
Family & Protective Servs., https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXDFPS/
bulletins/27e68be (last visited Mar. 11, 2024); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§§ 264.151–.172 (describing and providing requirements for Department oversight of
private community-based-care system for the State of Texas).

                                            9
      Although Mother and Father understood that completing services was

necessary for the children’s return, both largely resisted doing their services, even

though Villegas and the children’s Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)

repeatedly encouraged them to do so. The parents completed the required parenting

classes relatively quickly. But with most of their services, the parents delayed

completing necessary paperwork or were discharged from service providers for not

being truthful, for disruptive behavior, and for nonattendance. In some instances,

Villegas had to beg the providers to take the parents back. The parents did not start

actively engaging in most of their services until about four months before the

September 2023 termination trial started.

      The parents gave several reasons for their delay. Mother explained that she first

needed to “warm[] up” to the providers. Father initially believed that the service plans

were set up for the parents to fail. He explained that he had tried participating in

services at the case’s beginning but that he had trouble with the providers because

they were rude and disrespectful to him. He also claimed that he did not understand

his service plan and that he let his stress and anxiety take over. He further explained

that he had delayed starting to work services because “[i]t takes people time.”

      The parents also attributed their delay to not having attorneys for several

months. The trial court had discharged their appointed attorneys on November 15,

2022, because the parents had failed to complete the paperwork required to establish

their indigency and the corresponding right to appointed counsel. The trial court,

                                            10
Villegas, and the CASA repeatedly encouraged the parents to complete the paperwork

for appointed counsel, but the parents resisted because they thought that attorneys

would not be helpful and that they could defend themselves. Eventually, the parents

completed the paperwork, and the trial court reappointed their attorneys in early

March 2023.

C. The parents’ visits with the children

      Until March 2023, the parents attended nearly all scheduled visitations with the

children. The visits, all of which were supervised, did not always go well:

   • A visit had to be ended early because Mother continued to ask the children
     inappropriate questions even though she had been redirected and asked to
     stop.

   • Mother got into a verbal altercation with Beth and Mary’s foster mother,
     attacked the foster mother’s parenting abilities, and accused the foster mother
     of sexualizing the girls. Villegas had to intervene to end the conversation.

   • Henry grabbed a table and swung it over his head as if he were going to hit the
     CASA. The parents did not acknowledge Henry’s behavior or attempt to
     redirect him. A visit supervisor had to stop him.

   • Henry repeatedly tossed a full water bottle up in the air, and it eventually hit the
     floor and broke. The parents did not attempt to stop Henry from throwing the
     water bottle or ask him to clean up the water.

   • The parents gave Henry a haircut. When Villegas asked Mother to clean up the
     hair, Mother—in front of the children—laughed and told Villegas, “This is not
     my home[,] and it’s your job because it’s your facility.”11

      11
         Mother and Father both claimed that Father vacuumed up the hair, but
Villegas said that she did.

                                           11
   • At the parents’ February 21, 2023 visit, Henry became upset because he wanted
     to go home with his parents. After Father comforted him for a few minutes,
     Mother asked Villegas and the CASA if they enjoyed seeing Henry upset. They
     replied “no” and explained that they felt that it was less traumatizing to let
     Father comfort Henry rather than pulling Henry away. Mother and Father then
     told Henry that it was the Department’s fault that he could not come home
     with them. Henry became even more upset and clung to his parents. The
     parents barricaded Henry between them, refused to let Henry go, and
     continued blaming the Department for the situation. Villegas and the CASA
     unsuccessfully tried to calm down the parents and Henry and to deescalate the
     situation. After about 45 minutes, law enforcement was called. Mother told
     them that she was not going to let Henry go and that they would have to
     “yank” him away from her. It took another 45 minutes to an hour for the
     parents to let go of Henry and to end the visit.

      On more than one occasion, the children’s foster parents reported that after

visiting with the parents, the children had behavioral issues.

      Shortly after the February 21 visit, the children’s attorney ad litem moved to

suspend the visits entirely. At that motion’s hearing, Villegas reported on the parents’

continued resistance to working their service plans. She did not oppose suspending

the parents’ visitation, and the CASA supported the attorney ad litem’s request to

suspend the visits. On March 2, 2023, the trial court signed an order granting the

motion and suspended the parents’ access to the children. The trial court’s order

provided that once the parents had engaged in their service plans, demonstrated a

willingness to follow visitation rules, and completed court-ordered drug testing,12 their

visitation would resume.

      12
        The parents had frequently refused to drug test.

                                           12
      In April 2023 and August 2023, the parents moved to reinstate their visitation

rights. After evidentiary hearings on those motions, the trial court denied them.

D. Mother’s motion to extend the one-year dismissal deadline

      With the September 11, 2023 trial date and the October 2, 2023 statutory-

dismissal date approaching, Mother moved the trial court in August 2023 to retain

jurisdiction over the case and to set a new dismissal date. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 263.401(a), (b). Mother argued that the trial court should extend the dismissal date

to April 27, 2024, to give her more time to complete her service plan. After a hearing

at which Mother and Emily Hindman, the children’s counselor, testified, the trial

court denied the motion. The case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

                                     II. The Trial

      During the five-day jury trial, the jury heard testimony from Mother, Father,

Seyfried, Bottlinger, Villegas, Hindman, the CASA, three of the parents’ counselors,

Father’s bond supervisor, one of the parents’ neighbors, and four members of the

parents’ church.

A. The removal and the parents’ assurances

      Seyfried and Bottlinger recounted the events set out above surrounding their

involvement with the family and explained the Department’s concerns for the

children’s safety and its reasons for removing the children from the home. During the

parents’ testimony, they admitted that the children were in the home when the self-

harm and domestic violence events occurred. They agreed that Father’s self-harm and

                                          13
the domestic violence had created an environment that endangered the children’s

physical and emotional well-being and that the conduct itself had endangered the

children’s physical and emotional well-being.

      Mother claimed that the only time Father was physically violent with her was in

May 2022. She insisted that she was not afraid of Father and had never been afraid of

him, even during the May 2022 incident. She denied ever telling anyone that she

feared Father or that she was worried that Father would turn on the children. Mother

explained that each time Father had engaged in self-harm, she had taken the children

and left. But each time, she and Father later reunited. The only time that she sought

help for Father was when she called law enforcement after he threatened to hang

himself. This resulted in Father’s being hospitalized for 24 hours.13 Mother did not

seek help for herself or the children until she filed the police report after the May

2022 incident. After that incident, Father did not seek treatment, and according to

Mother, she and Father separated for five months. Mother explained that she let

Father come back because he had “show[n] progression,” and she “believe[d] that he

was working on himself.” The parents reconciled because Mother had seen “change

within him, and his demeanor, so [she] felt it would be okay.”

      One of the parents’ neighbors, however, painted a different picture. Crystal

Murillo, who had been a neighbor for two-and-a-half years, testified that Mother had

       Both Mother and Father claimed that hospital staff did not refer him to
      13

mental-health treatment or prescribe him any medication.

                                          14
told her several times that she was afraid of Father. In fact, when Father left the

family after the May 2022 incident, Mother had asked Murillo and her husband if she

could borrow a weapon because she was afraid of Father; they loaned her one.

According to Murillo, Father returned to the home less than two weeks—not five

months—after the May 2022 incident. When Father returned, Murillo and her

husband got the weapon back because they feared that Father would use it on

Mother.

      Mother and Father separated twice during the case’s pendency because,

according to Mother, the couple “just couldn’t get on the same page.” The last time

they separated, which was in February or March 2023, Mother asked law enforcement

to do a welfare check on Father because she was concerned that he was going to drive

off a bridge. Mother explained that Father had a pattern of attempting self-harm if

they were separated or if she threatened to leave him. But despite this pattern, Mother

insisted that she would leave Father for good if he hurt her or himself again. She was

unwilling, however, to consider divorcing Father because she considered divorce and

witnessing physical violence in the home to be equally traumatic to children.

      Mother testified that given what she had learned, she would not allow Father to

be around the children if he was displaying violent behavior. She was willing to give

Father another chance because since he had started working services and the parents

had joined their church, Father had the knowledge, skills, and support to deal with his

issues. Mother said that Father had learned how to better control his anger when

                                          15
dealing with confrontation.14 Before the children’s removal, the parents had no

support, but Mother believed that their church support combined with the services

Father was receiving from the Department would enable him to address his

emotional, mental, and psychiatric problems. Mother was confident that Father could

handle his issues and not emotionally endanger the children. Both parents were willing

to continue any treatment, counseling, and therapy that they and the children needed.

      Father testified that his most recent incident of self-harm was in February

2022 when he banged his head against a wall while arguing with Mother. But he

promised that there was no risk that he would self-harm again because of the support

he has through his church and the help he had received through the various

counseling services he had been participating in as part of his service plan. Father

agreed that his behavior had been going on for several years, but he claimed that the

roughly three months of counseling and treatment that he had recently received

sufficed to address his issues. The couple understood that the Department was trying

to help them, and they were willing to do whatever it took to get the children back.

B. The parents’ service plans

      Despite the parents’ expressed willingness at trial, they had not shown that

initiative throughout the case. As noted, despite Villegas’s and the CASA’s

       Murillo testified that there had been incidents of domestic violence between
      14

Mother and Father since the children had been removed. “[E]very other day,” Murillo
hears Mother and Father screaming and yelling at each other inside their home.

                                          16
encouragement, the parents resisted participating in their service plans at the case’s

start, and several providers had thus discharged them. As a result, they struggled to

complete their plans.

      At the time of trial, neither parent had successfully completed the required

psychological assessment. And although they had both completed their required

psychosocial assessments, they had only recently done so, Mother in July 2023, and

Father in August 2023. These assessments were required before the parents could

participate in individual counseling, and because of the parents’ delay, neither parent

had yet started individual counseling.15

      But Mother and Father had completed some of their service-plan requirements

and were still in the process of completing others. As noted, Mother and Father had

completed their parenting classes, and they had completed couples counseling.

Mother had very recently completed an anger-management class and a Victim’s

Intervention and Prevention Program (VIPP). The jury heard from Villegas and three

of the parents’ counselors regarding the parents’ progress on their plans.

      Both parents had been ordered to complete anger-management classes as part

of their service plans. Mother completed a 12-week anger-management class less than

      15
         Mother testified that she had started individual counseling two months before
trial. Villegas, however, testified that she had verified with Mother’s providers the
week before trial that Mother had not started individual counseling. Villegas believed
that Mother claimed that she had started counseling because she had done the
psychosocial assessment.

                                           17
two weeks before the trial started. At the time of trial, Father had completed only four

of the 12 required anger-management sessions. Mother’s plan also required her to

participate in a VIPP, and Father’s plan required him to participate in a Batterer’s

Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP). Both parents took these classes

through CW Outreach. Father’s anger-management course was also through CW

Outreach.

      Mother started VIPP with CW Outreach in late 2022. According to Chris

Wernert, a counselor and CW Outreach’s owner, Mother was initially angry and

denied that she was a domestic-abuse victim. She was argumentative, made excuses

for Father’s behavior, and minimized what had happened to her. She was disruptive

during sessions and did not constructively participate. As a result, she was

unsuccessfully discharged from the program in March 2023.

      At that time, Wernert thought that Mother had been groomed and brainwashed

and needed an extensive mental-health evaluation. But when Wernert talked to

Mother about getting mental-health treatment, she rejected the idea. Mother also told

Wernert that she did not believe that domestic violence affects children. He did not

think Mother could protect the children from herself or Father. Wernert was

concerned that this case “could be a murder-suicide” with Father killing Mother and

then himself.

      At some point, Mother returned to counseling at CW Outreach. In June 2023,

Mother started to make positive changes. According to Wernert, she started

                                          18
participating in the program and finally admitted that she was a family-violence victim.

She had learned coping skills, and she had accepted responsibility for the children’s

removal and understood that its cause was the home’s toxic environment. She now

understood domestic violence’s negative effects on children and saw domestic

violence as a form of child abuse.

      Mother completed VIPP about two weeks before trial. Wernert testified that he

believed that Mother would protect the children from Father because she had told

Wernert numerous times that if she had to, she would choose the children over

Father and would leave him to protect them. But when asked what actions Mother

had taken that would indicate that she would choose the children over Father,

Wernert responded, “She hasn’t been put in that position yet to make a choice.” The

attorney ad litem then pressed him further:

      Q. What do you mean by that?

      A. She’s trying to work it out with her husband, and then, you know, she
      wants to know what the [Department] wants to do -- that y’all make a
      choice and she’ll choose her children.

      Q. So I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

      A. All right. I guess she was waiting to see what y’all wanted -- do y’all
      want them to split up? Do you want them to stay together?

             If she had a choice of either, A, getting the kids back or, B, staying
      with [Father] and not getting the kids back, she would leave.

      Q. Okay. At this point in time, she’s not made any affirmative actions to
      separate from [Father]?

      A. No.

                                           19
      Wernert testified that he had first worked with Father in late 2022. Like

Mother, Father was initially angry and resisted treatment. During that time, Father had

worked with some female counselors at CW Outreach, but he indicated that he did

not want to work with a female counselor. Father was eventually dismissed from

treatment at CW Outreach.

      Like Mother, Father later resumed treatment there. But as late as June 2023,

Father appeared to be “just checking off boxes” and would tell Wernert what Wernert

wanted to hear; there was “no sincerity” in what Father said during treatment. But

Father had a “change of heart” in June or July 2023. His attitude and actions changed,

and he started to take accountability for his actions. He was no longer argumentative,

had opened up to Wernert, and had shown remorse. Father started anger-

management classes five weeks before trial and BIPP one week before trial. 16

      According to Wernert, Father had realized that he needed to work on his anger,

and he was making progress. But Father had not yet gotten far enough into treatment

to accept responsibility for the reasons for the children’s removal. It was also too

soon for Wernert to say whether Father was a continued domestic-violence risk.

When asked whether Father had an untreated mental-health issue, Wernert

responded, “I would think so, probably, yeah.”

      16
         According to Father, he was taking a second BIPP through CW Outreach. He
testified that he was also doing BIPP with another provider, and at the time of trial,
he had taken eight BIPP classes with that provider and had four classes left.

                                          20
      While Wernert had seen progress with both parents, he would not recommend

returning the children to Mother if Father was still in the home. He believed that

Mother would protect the children, but he believed that it was necessary for her to

separate from Father.17 With Father in the home, it was not safe for the children to

return.18 But Wernert believed that Mother could get the children away from Father

quickly “should an incident occur.”

      Kent Bass is a family counselor who did a family assessment with Mother,

Father, and the children in February 2023 to get the family’s history and to develop a

treatment plan. During the assessment, the parents and the children were very loving

and affectionate with each other, and the children were not scared of the parents.

After the assessment, Bass determined that the parents needed to undergo couples

counseling before engaging in family counseling.

      Mother and Father began couples counseling with Bass in mid-March 2023. At

the time of trial, Mother and Father had completed 18 counseling sessions with him.

The parents’ counseling goals were to process, address, and cope with the domestic

violence that was going on between them; to learn and apply communication skills;

and to learn and apply positive coping skills. Bass felt that both parents had worked

      17
        Murillo testified that she and her husband have tried to help Mother leave
Father to no avail.
      18
        Murillo was similarly concerned—she feared that if the children were returned
to the parents while Father was still in the home, the “children won’t be alive.”

                                         21
through their issues and met their goals, except that Bass had not addressed Father’s

mental-health issues regarding suicide. Even so, Bass concluded that the parents had

successfully completed couples counseling. The only reason that he had not

discharged them from counseling was so that he could continue offering them

support.

      Bass opined that the parents were ready for family counseling with the children

and stated that he had recommended family counseling to Villegas in July or August

2023. Bass admitted that he should have—but did not—consult with the children’s

therapist before recommending family counseling.

      He was aware that the parents’ visitation with the children had been

suspended.19 The parents had reported to him that Villegas had suspended the visits

because one of the children had gotten very loud and upset during a February

2023 visit. Bass said that the parents took no responsibility for what had happened at

the visit and did not tell him that their behavior had exacerbated the situation. Bass

was also unaware that it took law enforcement 45 minutes to deescalate the situation

and end the visitation and that the trial court—not Villegas or OCOK—had

suspended visitation. Bass additionally did not know that the trial court had twice

denied the parents’ requests to resume visitation with the children. These denials,

      19
         By the time Bass testified, the jury had heard detailed testimony about the
parents’ visits—including the February 2023 visit—with the children and about the
trial court’s suspending those visits.

                                         22
however, did not change Bass’s opinion that it was a good idea for the parents to

resume visits with their children.

      As with the reasons why the parents’ visitations were suspended, Bass was also

not aware of all of Father’s self-harm incidents and suicide attempts. He was surprised

to learn that in February 2023, Mother had called for a welfare check on Father

because she was afraid that he might hurt himself. Bass admitted that people in

therapy sometimes leave out important details to make themselves look better, but he

did not believe that the parents had done so.

      The parents’ plans also required that they submit to random drug testing at the

Department’s request. Although failing or refusing to test would result in a presumed

positive test, both parents refused to test when asked several times during the case.

Mother admitted that from November 2022 through February 2023, she had refused

five test requests from the Department. Father also refused to test multiple times

when asked, most recently the month before trial.

      Mother and Father tested for the first time in early March 2023; they both

tested positive for marijuana. Villegas testified that out of Mother’s eight tests, five

were positive. In early April, Mother tested positive for amphetamines,

methamphetamines, opiates, heroin, morphine, and norhydrocodone,20 and in May,

      20
        Although Mother admitted to recent marijuana and alcohol use, she denied
using any other illegal drugs or controlled substances since she was a teenager. She
claimed that the lab falsified the April 2023 test results.

                                          23
she tested positive for marijuana. Mother’s first negative test was in June, and she

tested negative again in August and September. Father also tested negative in

September. But other than that test and the March 2023 test, Father refused at least

five other testing requests from the Department in April, May, June, July, and August

2023.

        Mother and Father admitted that they had refused to test because they were

using marijuana. They both testified that they had continued to use marijuana during

the case but claimed that they had last used it in April 2023. Father admitted that

using marijuana violated his bond conditions21 and that a bond-condition violation

could result in his bond’s being revoked and his going to jail. For these reasons, he

had refused to test when the Department asked. He also refused to test because he

was testing through Parker County’s community-supervision department, and he

demanded that the Department get those results from his bond supervisor.22

         Hunter Reynolds, Father’s bond-condition supervisor, testified that although
        21

a trial court had set Father’s bond conditions in early October 2022, it did not appear
that those bond conditions were supervised until Reynolds became Father’s bond
supervisor in April 2023. The October 2022 bond conditions, as well as the
conditions imposed on Father while under Reynolds’s supervision, required Father to
abstain from illegal drugs and alcohol. While under Reynolds’s supervision, Father
submitted to random drug testing about once a month starting in April 2023, and
Father had never tested positive on those tests.

        Villegas testified that the Department did not have access to those records.
        22

According to Reynolds, however, he could share Father’s drug-test results with the
Department upon request, and he thought, but was unsure, that he might have shared
Father’s results with a Department caseworker.

                                          24
According to Mother, Father saw no reason to test at the Department’s request

because he was testing through the community-supervision department.

      Although the parents’ service plans also required them to complete a

substance-abuse assessment and to follow all recommendations from that assessment,

the parents delayed the assessment until early March 2023. Patty Merrill, the parents’

substance-abuse counselor, testified that Mother’s assessment revealed that Mother

was currently using marijuana to cope with anxiety and that she had a history of using

alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamines. Mother reported to Merrill that she had

last consumed alcohol six months before her assessment, had last used

methamphetamines when she was 15 years old, and had last used marijuana on March

2, 2023, the day before her assessment. Father’s reported history was inconsistent and

vague. He resisted giving any information to Merrill during the assessment but did tell

her that he had a history of substance abuse. He did not reveal any details to Merrill

but reported that he was currently using marijuana for Crohn’s disease.23

      Merrill testified that she has been providing substance-abuse counseling to both

parents since March 2023, but Mother’s participation did not become consistent until

May 2023. Since then, Mother had opened up a lot, was making a good-faith effort to

participate in counseling, and had made significant progress, but she still “ha[d] a long

way to go in dealing with some of her issues.”

      23
        There was no other mention of Father’s having Crohn’s disease.

                                           25
      According to Merrill, Mother and Father have an enmeshed relationship and

resisted having individual counseling sessions. In the six to eight individual counseling

sessions that Mother did have with Merrill, she was calmer and “more open to talk

about herself.” But when Father was present, Mother was more concerned about him

and his needs. Father refused to do individual counseling with Merrill despite her

expressing the importance of individual sessions to his recovery. He told Merrill that

he was not comfortable unless his wife was there with him.

      Because of the parents’ enmeshed relationship, Merrill recommended early on

that they separate to work on becoming independent from each other before working

on their relationship. The parents declined to separate. Even so, Mother had become

more independent from Father, and Merrill believed that if Mother were “in a

situation with her children and [Father] was doing something harmful,” she would

leave. Merrill testified that Mother had accepted her mistakes with the children, had

set “boundaries where the children [were] concerned,” and had told Father in recent

sessions that if his behavior continued, she would take the children and leave him. But

despite Mother’s progress, Merrill said that Mother is “still a work in progress” and

was not as independent as Merrill would like her to be. Merrill had thus not

discharged her from treatment.

      Merrill described Father as initially “completely closed” and resistant to

counseling. But after Merrill and Father had a serious conversation in July 2023,

Father had started to “open up” and had made some progress. But he still had a long

                                           26
way to go. Merrill testified that Father still had issues with taking accountability for his

actions and was still blaming others—specifically the Department, OCOK, and

Mother—for his problems. Merrill also questioned whether Father was making a

good-faith effort in counseling because she did not see him utilizing what he was

learning.

       Merrill testified that Father is guarded and has a deep, ingrained mistrust of

others, especially women. She theorized that this mistrust is the result of emotional

trauma or mental-health issues. She had recommended that Father get inpatient

mental-health treatment and anger-management counseling. Father was very resistant

to inpatient treatment but had indicated to Merrill that he was willing to do some

additional treatment and counseling. She thought that Father’s mental health needed

to be treated first and estimated that Father needed well over a year (or longer) of

counseling to recover. Father’s level of resistance to counseling caused Merrill

concern for both parents’ continued recovery.

       The Department was also concerned about the parents’ mental health and had

required both to undergo psychiatric evaluations. Mother completed her evaluation in

March 2023. According to Villegas, after this evaluation, Mother was asked to go to

inpatient psychiatric treatment but had refused because “she had heard bad things

about it[,] and [Father] did not speak highly of it.” Mother denied that inpatient care

had been recommended. Father did not complete his evaluation until August

                                            27
2023 and had an appointment with a psychiatrist the month after trial. Father was also

asked to complete a suicide assessment, but he never did so.

      Both parents admitted to struggling with mental health. Father admitted that he

suffers from depression and anxiety. Mother testified that she had been diagnosed

with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety.24 Mother had been

prescribed medication to help with these conditions, but she had refused to take it

because she is opposed to taking psychotropic medication. Father was also opposed

to taking psychotropic medication. 25

      In addition to submitting to drug testing and participating in the various

assessments, counseling sessions, and classes, the parents were required to maintain

safe and stable housing; demonstrate their financial stability to provide for the basic

needs of themselves and the children; and maintain a valid driver’s license, insurance,

and stable transportation.

      The Department took no issue with the condition of Mother and Father’s

home. Mother and Father own their mobile home, and their monthly lot rent is $500.

The month before trial, the parents were $1,800 behind in lot rent and had received

      24
        Mother had a traumatic childhood that included abuse, rape, and molestation.
      25
        Mother admitted to having used marijuana to self-medicate and agreed that
she was willing to take an illegal substance but not a prescribed medication. Father
explained that he did not want to use psychotropic medications because they were
“mind-alter[ing]” and “chemically made.” But he had used marijuana, which he
admitted is a mind-altering drug.

                                          28
an eviction notice from the lot owner. At one point, CW Outreach had paid

$600 toward the couple’s rent. At the time of trial, however, the parents still owed

$1,400. Mother testified that the family was not in danger of losing housing because

they had worked out a payment plan with the lot owner. Father also denied that their

housing was in jeopardy.

       Mother and Father own a car that was registered and insured, and each parent

had a driver’s license.

       Mother and Father have had some financial problems since the children’s

removal but insisted that those problems were caused by their wages’ being garnished

for child support for the children and by their inability to work full time because they

had to work their service plans. Mother, who was a stay-at-home mother before the

children’s removal, had four employers during the case’s pendency. She had been with

her most recent employer since June 2023. When the case started, Father had worked

for the same company for 14 or 15 years. He left that company in December

2022 and did “odd jobs” for a while. By trial, however, he had obtained a full-time job

that paid $20 per hour. Mother and Father anticipated that Father would be able to

work full time after he finished his services and would thus be able to provide for the

family.

       Finally, the parents’ service plans required that the parents develop a support

system. Mother and Father started attending Sunset Church around Mother’s Day in

May 2023 and have attended regularly since then. The jury heard testimony from the

                                          29
church’s pastor, a church deacon, the church’s owner, and one of Mother’s church

mentors (collectively, the church family). According to the church family, Mother and

Father have become very involved in the church, have engaged in counseling at the

church, and have developed a strong support system there. Both parents have church

mentors26 who live nearby and are available to help the couple day or night. Mother’s

mentor testified that Mother had told her that she would leave Father to get the

children back.

      Father and Mother had discussed with the church family the issues that led to

the children’s removal. According to the church family, Father had changed since he

and Mother started attending church. At first, Father was lost, broken, and angry; he

was in denial and was unwilling to cooperate with the Department. But after having

some serious conversations with his church family, Father had changed. 27 In the past

few months, Father had become more relaxed and had opened up; had admitted to

engaging in self-harm and domestic violence; had accepted responsibility for his

actions; had realized that he risked losing Mother and the children; and had started

completing his services. Father had become happy, joyful, and active in the church.

The church family believed that Father’s efforts were sincere, and they had no doubt

       The pastor and the church deacon are Father’s mentors. The pastor’s wife—
      26

who did not testify at trial—is Mother’s other mentor.

       Father testified that his church mentors encouraged him to actively participate
      27

and engage in his service plan.

                                         30
that Father loved Mother and loved the children. Based on their observations of both

parents, the church family believed that the children would not be in danger if

returned to Mother and Father.

C. The children

      At the time of trial, Henry was nine years old, Beth was three months shy of

turning seven, and Mary had just celebrated her fourth birthday. All three children

suffer from behavioral problems. They are physically and verbally aggressive with

each other, other children, and adults, and their behavior is sometimes violent.

Villegas and Hindman believed that the children’s behavior was primarily caused by

their exposure to domestic violence and suicide attempts in the parents’ home, not

from the trauma of their removal from the parents.

      Initially, Mary and Beth were in one foster home, and Henry was in another.

Henry was very fond of his foster mother and became very attached to her. In January

2023, all three children were placed in the same foster home. When the CASA visited

the children 28 after their February 2023 visit with the parents, she observed that

Henry’s demeanor had changed; he was sad and upset and was traumatized from that

visit. Henry told Hindman and the CASA that he blamed himself for the parents’

      28
        Since October 2022, the CASA had visited the children monthly in their
foster homes.

                                        31
visitation being suspended. 29 He also disclosed to Hindman that “he felt like if he

could go home, he could save and protect his parents” and that he was worried that

he would lose Father to a breakup or suicide.

      Henry was returned to his original foster home in March 2023 because while all

three children were in the same home, their behavioral problems had intensified and

because Henry wanted to return to his first foster mother. While in foster care, Henry

received trauma-based individual therapy and behavioral therapy. During one of

Villegas’s visits, Henry became so afraid after seeing his foster mother use a knife in

the kitchen to cut food that he hid under a table. It took Villegas ten to fifteen

minutes to coax Henry out from under the table. According to Villegas, this was not a

normal response for a child.

      Although Henry was very bonded with his foster mother, he was no longer in

her home at the time of trial. He was in a psychiatric hospital because he had been

hitting, punching, spitting, and kicking his foster mother. 30 The CASA believed that

      29
        Hindman testified that she was in favor of suspending the parents’ visitation.
Villegas testified that she felt that the children had improved since the visits had been
suspended.
      30
         Villegas testified that Henry had engaged in this behavior multiple times.
Mother said that she was concerned that Henry had been hospitalized because she
“just [didn’t] see the behavior coming from him to have to reach that point.” Murillo,
however, testified that Henry had prior incidents of violent behavior, including
stabbing a classmate in the face at school, which resulted in Henry’s suspension.

                                           32
because of Henry’s aggression toward his foster mother, hospitalization was good for

him.

       Henry had been prescribed Clonidine, and he was discharged from the hospital

during the trial. Upon his release, he was going to a residential treatment center

(RTC). In Villegas’s opinion, it was in Henry’s best interest to go to an RTC, which is

a therapeutic setting that helps with behavioral or escalated needs. Villegas opined that

if Henry went back to his home or to a foster home, he would not receive the

treatment he needs to heal and that he was in danger of harming himself or others if

he went anywhere other than an RTC.

       Beth and Mary also had behavioral issues. Hindman—who has regular

counseling sessions with the girls31—testified that both girls are verbally and physically

aggressive with children and adults: yelling, hitting, pushing, and slapping. The

intensity of their behavior, both in terms of degree and length, is atypical for children

their age. The girls are not remorseful after displaying aggressive behavior, and they

are unable to internalize and understand how their behavior affects others and the

consequences of that behavior. Although Mary is too young to fully understand the

concept of empathy, she does not grasp the concept to the degree that she should for

her age. Hindman described Beth as “calculated” and testified that “when you ask her

       Hindman saw the girls at least every other week. She had been their counselor
       31

since October 2022. She was also Henry’s counselor while all three children lived in
the same foster home.

                                           33
how she feels about what she did or how it affects other people, she just easily shrugs

it off.”

       Beth was recently admitted to a psychiatric hospital for having homicidal

ideations. Hindman recommended that Beth’s foster mother take Beth for a

psychiatric session after Hindman saw Beth trying to force a four-year-old girl out of a

chair by pushing on the chair from underneath a table. Beth told Hindman that she

wanted the child “to fall out of the chair and bust her head open”; Hindman said Beth

was “very clear” that she intended to kill the child. When Hindman asked Beth

whether she had thought about any other ways of killing the child, Beth responded

that she would take a knife and slit the child’s throat. When Beth could not find a play

knife to demonstrate how she would do it, she put a Lincoln Log to Hindman’s

throat, made “a motion across her throat with her hand,” and said that she wanted the

child to die. Hindman then asked Beth if she had access to a real knife, and Beth

responded that she could find one in a bottom kitchen cabinet.

       Beth was hospitalized for about ten days. She was prescribed Risperdal, which

Hindman thought was necessary to address the intensity of Beth’s behaviors and her

mental status. Hindman is concerned with Beth’s intense anger, impulsivity, and

inability to manage her emotions and keep herself in a stable state. Hindman is

similarly concerned with the intensity of Mary’s anger. During Hindman’s play-

therapy sessions with the girls, they indicated that they had witnessed multiple

occasions of violence between the parents. These incidents involved lots of yelling,

                                          34
hitting, and pushing. The girls had also “expressed awareness of [Father]’s suicide

attempt”; had “expressed witnessing blood”; and had described an incident in which

Mother was trying to get away from Father that involved “[k]icking a window out.”

The girls also indicated that Henry would intervene in the parents’ fights in an attempt

to stop them. Hindman explained that a child’s exposure to this kind of trauma can

negatively impact the child’s brain development, emotional control, and behavioral

control. The girls will continue to need therapy, possibly on a long-term basis.

      After Beth’s hospitalization, she returned to the same foster home, and the

girls’ behavior was the best the CASA had seen from them. Hindman, Villegas, and

the CASA had no concerns about the foster home where Beth and Mary have been

placed. The girls have bonded with the family. Both girls are doing very well in the

home, which is very structured.

      Hindman was confident that the parents’ actions had negatively affected the

children. Hindman acknowledged that although removing children from their parents

can traumatize the children, sometimes removal is necessary. From what she had

learned while counseling the children here, removal from Mother and Father was

necessary.

      The Department has not identified adoptive placements for the children. 32

According to both Villegas and Hindman, none of the children are ready or stable

      32
         None of the foster parents here were adoption motivated. The Department’s
initial goal was family reunification, but that goal changed to unrelated adoption in

                                           35
enough to be placed in a prospective adoptive home. The children still have many

emotional and behavioral problems that need to be addressed. Hindman, Villegas, and

the CASA all agreed that given the trauma the children had witnessed and the extent

of the parents’ issues, returning the children to the parents would not be in the

children’s best interest.

       Villegas explained that the Department was asking for termination of Mother’s

and Father’s parental rights because the children had “seen and witnessed a lot” and

were traumatized. According to Villegas, the children “almost can’t function at this

moment because . . . they keep reliving things.”

D. The parents’ progress and the Department’s continued concerns

       Villegas acknowledged that the parents had made some progress but had

addressed the Department’s concerns only “to some extent.” Villegas explained that a

service plan is not just a checklist but is a way for parents to demonstrate changed

behavior to the Department. The Department encourages parents to complete their

service plan early so that they can demonstrate to the Department that their behavior

has changed.

       Here, the parents had not addressed the Department’s concerns to the point

that Villegas would feel comfortable returning the children. Father had not made a lot

of progress. Mother had not reduced the risk to herself because even though she had

March 2023 based on the parents’ lack of progress on their service plans and the lack
of potential family placements.

                                          36
acknowledged that the parents’ relationship was bad, she had not left Father. It

concerned Villegas that even after all the classes Mother had taken and the progress

she had made, Mother still maintained a relationship with Father. Mother told Villegas

that even if she did leave Father, she did not “think anything would keep him away.”

Villegas agreed that because the parents were still together, returning the children to

Mother was tantamount to returning the children to both parents.

      Hindman and the CASA also acknowledged that the parents had recently

improved. The CASA, however, maintained that these recent changes were not

enough. Hindman was very concerned about the children’s being returned to the

parents because Mother and Father continue to have “a lot of issues” that need to be

addressed. When Hindman was asked whether the parents’ issues could be resolved in

a couple of months, she responded, “No,” and explained,

      The issues that I’m aware of involve mental health issues, domestic
      violence issues, and substance abuse issues that have been long-term
      issues for these parents.

             Given the nature of each one of those, it would be more than just
      a couple of months to be able to stabilize, enter some kind of recovery,
      and have a solid relapse prevention plan in place. That would take more
      than just a couple of months.

E. The jury’s findings

      As to each child, the jury unanimously found by clear and convincing evidence

that each parent had

   • knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or
     surroundings that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being;

                                          37
   • engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in
     conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being; and

   • 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
     who had been in the Department’s permanent or temporary managing
     conservatorship for not less than nine months as the result of the child’s
     removal from the parent under Family Code Chapter 262 due to the child’s
     abuse or neglect.

See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). The jury further found by clear and convincing

evidence that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child was in

that child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Based on the jury’s findings, the trial

court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the children and appointed

the Department as the children’s permanent managing conservator.

       Mother and Father timely filed separate notices of appeal.

                          III. Mother’s and Father’s Points

       Mother and Father have filed separate briefs raising similar points. In their first

through eighth points, they challenge the legal and factual evidentiary sufficiency to

support each of the jury’s findings. Mother raises two additional points: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion by denying her requested jury charge on Section

161.001(d)’s affirmative defense of whether Mother made a good-faith effort to

comply with her court-ordered service plan and whether Mother’s noncompliance was

her fault (Mother’s ninth point) and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying

Mother’s request to extend Section 263.401(b)’s one-year dismissal deadline (Mother’s

tenth point).

                                            38
      We will address these points out of order because doing so aids in our

disposition of the parents’ appeals.

          IV. Mother’s Motion to Extend the Statutory-Dismissal Date

      In her tenth point, Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying her motion to extend the case’s October 2, 2023 statutory-dismissal date.

      Generally, the statutory deadline for beginning a termination trial is the

Monday following the first anniversary of the day that the trial court appointed the

Department as the child’s temporary managing conservator. See id. § 263.401(a). If,

however, a trial on the merits has not commenced within that time, the trial court may

extend the dismissal deadline if the movant shows “that extraordinary circumstances

necessitate the child remaining in the temporary managing conservatorship of the

department and that continuing the appointment of the department as temporary

managing conservator is in the best interest of the child.” Id. § 263.401(b). “The focus

is on the needs of the child, whether extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child

remaining in the temporary custody of the Department, and whether continuing such

is in the best interest of the child.” In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied) (en banc) (op. on reh’g) (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 263.401(b)). “The statute’s clear preference is to complete the process within the

one-year period.” Id. at 605. Actions that are “considered to be the parent’s fault” will

generally not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. In re O.R.F., 417 S.W.3d 24,

                                           39
42 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, pet. denied) (quoting In re G.P., No. 10-13-00062-

CV, 2013 WL 2639243, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco June 6, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)).

      We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a dismissal-date extension

for an abuse of discretion. A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d at 604. A trial court abuses its

discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles—that is, if its

act is arbitrary or unreasonable. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Cire v.

Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838–39 (Tex. 2004). An appellate court cannot conclude

that a trial court abused its discretion merely because the appellate court would have

ruled differently in the same circumstances. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson,

923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620.

      The trial court heard Mother’s extension motion the week before the

September 11, 2023 trial. In her motion, Mother asked the trial court to extend the

dismissal date to give her more time to complete her service plan. Her request was

primarily based on her inability to attend in-person counseling—which the trial court

had ordered Mother to do in June 2023—because only Zoom sessions were available.

At the hearing, Mother testified that she had been participating in Zoom individual

counseling through Merit Family Services but that no in-person sessions were offered.

According to Mother, the Department had not provided any options for in-person

counseling, and she did not think that she was on a waiting list for in-person

counseling with Merit Family Services.

                                           40
       Mother also testified that she had completed her parenting and anger-

management classes and had completed her psychosocial assessment in July 2023.

Mother was one class away from completing her VIPP and was attending substance-

abuse and couples counseling. She had not, however, completed her psychological

assessment, which was scheduled for September 13, 2023, or if the case went to trial,

October 11, 2023. Mother had a part-time job, had applied for a certification at

Weatherford College, and had joined and was involved in a church.

       Mother explained that she had delayed working her service plan because she

and Father were traumatized by the children’s removal. She was also without an

attorney for several months but admitted that even without counsel, she understood

what services she was required to complete. Mother also admitted to being behind on

lot rent; refusing to take the medication prescribed to treat her depression, anxiety,

and insomnia; and refusing to drug test for several months into the case because

Father had persuaded her not to test because the couple was using marijuana.

       Hindman testified about the effect of extending the case on the children. She

explained that in a child’s mind, a six-month timeframe feels like years, and children

who have answers do better than children who are waiting. She further explained that

a six-month extension would be difficult for any child to conceptualize because “[i]t

feels like a very long time,” which can create anxiety and confusion. Anxiety and

confusion commonly cause increased behavior problems. She opined that six months

was going to be very difficult for the girls to navigate.

                                            41
      Mother argues that “while [she] was at fault for some of the delays in working

her plan at the beginning of the case, she was fully committed at the time of the

hearing and making a good[-]faith effort to complete her service plan.” As noted,

actions that are “considered to be the parent’s fault” will generally not constitute an

extraordinary circumstance. O.R.F., 417 S.W.3d at 42. Even though Mother was

unable to complete in-person counseling, Mother had delayed working her service

plan for several months after the children were removed and was still not finished

with several other parts of her service plan the week before trial. Additionally,

Hindman testified that delaying the trial another six months could have a detrimental

effect on the children, specifically Beth and Mary. We conclude that in focusing on

the needs of the children, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Mother

had failed to prove that extraordinary circumstances justified an extension and that an

extension would have been in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 263.401(b). We thus hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Mother’s motion to extend the dismissal date.

      We overrule Mother’s tenth point.

                      V. Evidence Supporting Termination of
                      Mother’s and Father’s Parental Rights

      In their first through eighth points, Mother and Father challenge the legal and

factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the jury’s findings.

                                           42
A. Burden of proof and standard of review

      For a trial court to terminate a parent–child relationship, the Department must

prove two elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the parent’s actions

satisfy one ground listed in Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1); and (2) that

termination is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); In re

Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex. 2020). Evidence is clear and convincing if it “will

produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of

the allegations sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007; Z.N.,

602 S.W.3d at 545.

      To determine whether the evidence is legally sufficient in parental-termination

cases, we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding

to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction

that the finding is true. Z.N., 602 S.W.3d at 545. The factfinder may draw inferences,

but they must be reasonable and logical. Id. We assume that the factfinder settled any

evidentiary conflicts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could have done

so. Id. We disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved,

and we consider undisputed evidence even if it is contrary to the finding. Id.; In re

J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). That is, we consider evidence favorable to the

finding if a reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard contrary evidence unless a

reasonable factfinder could not. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). The

                                          43
factfinder is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor. In re J.O.A.,

283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009).

      We must perform “an exacting review of the entire record” in determining the

factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of a parent–child

relationship. In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 2014). Nevertheless, we give due

deference to the factfinder’s findings and do not supplant the verdict with our own.

In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). We review the whole record to decide

whether a factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the

Department proved a predicate ground listed in Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)

and that the termination of the parent–child relationship would be in the children’s

best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex.

2002). If the factfinder reasonably could form such a firm conviction or belief, then

the evidence is factually sufficient. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 18–19.

      Clear and convincing evidence of one pleaded conduct ground is sufficient to

support a termination decision if coupled with sufficient best-interest evidence. See

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

App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). But if one of the pleaded and found conduct

grounds is based on endangerment—Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E)—then we must

fully address that ground, if presented on appeal, based on the future collateral

consequences of such a finding. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235–37 (Tex. 2019);

see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(M) (allowing termination of parent’s

                                           44
parental rights if such rights to another child had been terminated under Section

161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E)). We therefore first address the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the jury’s findings on each of these grounds.

B. The jury’s endangerment findings

      Mother and Father argue in their first through fourth points that the evidence

is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s findings that they endangered

their children’s physical and emotional well-being under Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D)

and (E) of the Family Code.

      Subsections (D) and (E) provide that a trial court may terminate a parent’s

parental rights if a factfinder finds by clear and convincing evidence that a parent has

      (D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in
      conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional
      well-being of the child; [or]

      (E) 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.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E).

      The difference between Subsections (D) and (E) is the source of the physical or

emotional endangerment to the child. In re R.S., No. 02-15-00137-CV,

2015 WL 5770530, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 1, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Endangerment—which is defined as exposing the child to loss or injury or to

jeopardy—under Subsection (D) arises from the child’s environment, while

endangerment under Subsection (E) must be a direct result of a parent’s conduct,

                                           45
including acts, omissions, or failures to act. In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). But a parent’s conduct can also contribute to an

endangering environment under Subsection (D) because “abusive or violent conduct

by a parent or other resident of a child’s home may produce an environment that

endangers the physical or emotional well-being of a child.” Id. (first citing In re W.S.,

899 S.W.2d 772, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no writ); and then citing

Ziegler v. Tarrant Cnty. Child Welfare Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.)).

       Termination of parental rights under Subsection (E) requires more than a

parent’s single act or omission; rather, it requires a voluntary, deliberate, and

conscious course of conduct by the parent that endangers the child, even though the

conduct need not be directed at the child and the child need not actually suffer injury.

In re L.M.F., No. 02-13-00459-CV, 2014 WL 2465137, at *13 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth May 29, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citing J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at

125); see also In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 741 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet.

denied) (stating that the factfinder was not required to ignore a long history of

dependency and destructive behavior, including abusing drugs and alcohol, in

considering endangerment). Furthermore, conduct that subjects a child to a life of

uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s physical and emotional well-being.

L.M.F., 2014 WL 2465137, at *14; R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 739. Mental illness or mental

incompetence alone is not a basis for terminating the parent–child relationship, but

                                           46
when a parent’s mental state allows him to engage in conduct that endangers the

child’s physical or emotional well-being, “that conduct has a bearing on the

advisability of terminating the parent’s rights.” L.M.F., 2014 WL 2465137, at

*14 (quoting Maxwell v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-11-00242-CV,

2012 WL 987787, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 23, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)). “A

parent’s attempt to commit suicide may also contribute to a finding that the parent

engaged in a course of conduct that endangered a child’s physical or emotional well-

being.” J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 126. Domestic violence and a propensity for violence

may also be considered as evidence of endangerment. L.M.F., 2014 WL 2465137, at

*14 (citing In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003,

no pet.)).

       Because the evidence pertaining to Subsections (D) and (E) is interrelated, we

will conduct a consolidated review. See In re G.C., No. 02-17-00259-CV,

2018 WL 547784, at *21 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 25, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.);

In re S.H., No. 02-17-00188-CV, 2017 WL 4542859, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Oct. 12, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       Here, as set out more fully above, Father had a history of self-harm and suicide

attempts, and during an argument in May 2022, Father picked Mother up by her

throat and slammed her down. Father then hit the back of his head with a hammer

and slammed his head into a wall. This incident happened while the children were in

the home, and Henry witnessed it. Mother and Father maintain that the May

                                          47
2022 incident was the only domestic-violence incident between the parents. But Beth

and Mary told Hindman that they had witnessed multiple violent incidents between

the parents. The girls were also aware of Father’s suicide attempts. All three children

exhibited mental-health issues and severe behavioral problems primarily caused by

their exposure to violence in the home.

      Mother claimed that at the time of these incidents, she did not fully understand

how the parents’ behavior had endangered the children. But the jury could have

reasonably disbelieved that testimony. Mother testified that she took the children and

left Father after each incident. She told Seyfried after the May 2022 incident that

Father’s behavior was becoming more erratic and had increased to a level that made

her “very fearful for her safety and the safety of her children.” She was concerned that

he would commit suicide in front of the children or “take a turn and take his violence

out on the kids.” Mother also told Seyfried that based on the parents’ relationship and

where it was going, she believed that if she stayed with him, he would eventually kill

her. But despite Father’s behavior and Mother’s concerns for her safety and that of

the children, she had continued to reunite with Father. From this evidence, the jury

could have reasonably inferred that Mother knew that the parents’ conduct created an

endangering environment for the children.

      As both parents point out, there have been no recent self-harm incidents and

both parents were participating in various forms of counseling and were showing

signs of improvement. And Mother maintained that she would leave Father for good

                                          48
if he engaged in self-destructive behavior again. But even if a parent makes dramatic

improvements before trial, “evidence of improved conduct, especially of short-

duration, does not conclusively negate the probative value of a long history

of . . . irresponsible choices.” In re L.E.M., No. 02-11-00505-CV, 2012 WL 4936607,

at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 18, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.)

(quoting J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346). Here, both parents had ongoing mental-health

issues and had resisted treatment. Merrill testified that Mother and Father have a very

enmeshed relationship, which casts doubt on whether Mother would, in fact, separate

from Father to keep the children safe. Mother acknowledged that her relationship

with Father was troubled, but she had not left him. And Wernert maintained that it

was not safe to return the children to Mother if Father was still in the home.

      Applying the applicable standards of review, we conclude that the evidence

here is legally and factually sufficient for the jury to have formed a firm belief or

conviction that Mother and Father had knowingly placed or knowingly allowed all

three children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical

or emotional well-being. See In re S.G., No. 02-14-00245-CV, 2015 WL 392772, at

*5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 29, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (stating

that “abusive or violent conduct by a parent may produce an environment that

endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being”). The jury could likewise have

formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother and Father had engaged in conduct

that endangered the children. See J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at 126 (explaining that a parent’s

                                          49
suicide attempts may “contribute to a finding that the parent engaged in a course of

conduct that endangered a child’s physical or emotional well-being”); see also In re

C.A.G., No. 14-18-00930-CV, 2019 WL 1523114, *8–9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] Apr. 9, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (explaining that mother’s refusal to leave

father, whose behavior had endangered the child’s physical and emotional well-being,

demonstrated a course of conduct by mother that endangered the child’s physical and

emotional well-being); In re E.G., No. 02-14-00351-CV, 2015 WL 1262631, at *9 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“As a general

rule, conduct that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the

child’s physical and emotional well-being.”). Having concluded that the evidence is

legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s findings under Subsections (D) and

(E), we overrule Mother’s and Father’s first, second, third, and fourth points.33

C. The jury’s best-interest findings

       The parents’ seventh and eight points challenge the legal and factual sufficiency

of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings that termination of the parents’ parental

rights was in the children’s best interest.

        Because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s
       33

Subsection (D) and (E) findings, we need not address Mother’s and Father’s fifth and
sixth points, which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s
Subsection (O) findings (failure to complete their service plans). See Tex. R. App. P.
47.1; In re R.H., No. 02-20-00396-CV, 2021 WL 2006038, at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth May 20, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). We also need not address Mother’s ninth
point, which challenges the trial court’s failing to instruct the jury on Section
161.001(d)’s affirmative defense to termination under Subsection (O). See Tex. R.
App. P. 47.1.

                                              50
       Although we generally presume that keeping a child with a parent is in the

child’s best interest, In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006), the best-interest

analysis is child-centered, focusing on the child’s well-being, safety, and development,

In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). In determining whether evidence is

sufficient to support a best-interest finding, we review the entire record. In re E.C.R.,

402 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013). Evidence probative of a child’s best interest may be

the same evidence that is probative of a Subsection (b)(1) ground. Id. at 249; C.H.,

89 S.W.3d at 28; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2). We also consider the

evidence in light of nonexclusive factors that the factfinder may apply in determining

the child’s best interest:

       • the child’s desires;

       • the child’s emotional and physical needs now and in the future;

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

       • the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody;

       • the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the child’s best
         interest;

       • the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody;

       • the stability of the home or proposed placement;

       • the parent’s acts or omissions indicating that the existing parent–child
         relationship is not a proper one; and

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

                                           51
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted); see E.C.R.,

402 S.W.3d at 249 (stating that in reviewing a best-interest finding, “we consider,

among other evidence, the Holley factors” (footnote omitted)); In re E.N.C.,

384 S.W.3d 796, 807 (Tex. 2012). These factors are not exhaustive, and some listed

factors may not apply to some cases. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. Furthermore, undisputed

evidence of just one factor may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is

in the child’s best interest. Id. On the other hand, the presence of scant evidence

relevant to each factor will not support such a finding. Id.

       As to the children’s desires, the children love their parents, and they asked the

parents during visitation whether the parents had started their service plans so that the

children could go home. This factor weighs against terminating the parents’ parental

rights to the children.

       Regarding (1) the children’s physical and emotional needs now and in the future, (2) the

physical and emotional danger to the children now and in the future, and (3) the programs available

to assist the parents in promoting the children’s best interests, the children have emotional and

behavioral problems that are the product of what they had witnessed in the home.

Henry and Beth required hospitalization and medication, and Henry was in an RTC at

the time of trial because he was not stable enough to return to a foster home. Villegas

opined that Henry was in danger of harming himself or others if he was not in an

RTC. All three children required continued counseling and therapy, and Hindman was

                                                52
not in favor of the children returning home because both the children and the parents

still have issues to address.

       The parents agreed that the children needed counseling and therapy and stated

that they would continue to take the children to treatment if the children were

returned to them. The parents were still working on their service plans and had a

support network through their church family. Both parents said that they were willing

to continue their treatment and counseling.

       But the parents were unwilling to take any psychotropic medications prescribed

to them, and they would hesitate to allow the children to take them. The parents had

also resisted inpatient mental-health treatment when it was recommended to them.

And, until recently, they had largely resisted engaging in the requisite assessments,

classes, and counseling. According to Merrill and Hindman, both parents had a long

way to go in dealing with their issues. And Father’s level of resistance to substance-

abuse counseling caused Merrill concern for both parents’ continued recovery. From

this evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the parents would not

continue to seek the treatment and counseling that they and the children required.

       Wernert testified that it was too soon for him to say whether Father was a

continued domestic-violence risk and that it was not safe to return the children to

Mother if Father was still in the home. Mother had not separated from Father, and

although she maintained that she would leave Father if he engaged in violent behavior

again, the jury could have reasonably inferred from Mother’s past actions, her

                                          53
statements regarding divorce, and the parents’ enmeshed relationship, that it was

unlikely that she would do so. It was thus reasonable for the jury to conclude that

Father remained a danger to the children and that Mother was unwilling to leave

Father for the children’s well-being.

      Although the parents had completed some of their service-plan requirements,

had recently shown a willingness to work their plans, and had demonstrated some

improvement, we conclude that based on the parents’ past conduct, the jury was

entitled to conclude that these factors weighed in favor of terminating Mother’s and

Father’s parental rights. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2013, no pet.) (“[I]t is proper to measure a parent’s future conduct by his or

her past conduct to determine whether termination is in the child’s best interest.”); In

re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)

(holding that a parent’s “recent turnaround” and compliance with a service plan are

factors jurors should consider in a determination of best interest but are not

determinative); see also In re S.A.W., 131 S.W.3d 704, 709 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no

pet.) (holding termination in child’s best interest despite mother’s lifestyle

improvements and eventual compliance with service plan).

      As to the parents’ parenting abilities, the parents completed their parenting classes

relatively early in the case. But they failed to exhibit good parenting abilities during

their visitations, and their visitation rights were suspended because of their behavior

during the February 21, 2023 visit. The parents were unable persuade the trial court to

                                           54
reinstate their visitation rights so that they could demonstrate their parenting abilities

during their visits.34 We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of terminating the

parents’ parental rights.

       As to the parents’ and the Department’s plans for the children, the parents, as noted,

planned to continue the children’s counseling and therapy. But again, the jury could

have reasonably disbelieved their testimony. Mother testified that she planned to work

while the children were in school and to be home whenever they were home. She also

planned to enroll Henry and Beth in a local elementary school. That elementary

school also has a preschool that she planned to enroll Mary in, but if no space was

available for Mary, Mother knew of a nearby Christian school that would accept her.

       The Department’s plan for the children was unrelated adoption. But at the time

of trial, none of children were ready or stable enough to be placed in a prospective

adoptive home. The children still had significant emotional and behavioral problems

that needed to be addressed and stabilized. And the Department was continuing to

provide counseling and treatment. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of

terminating the parents’ parental rights.

       Regarding the stability of the parents’ home, the parents owned their mobile home,

but were $1,400 behind on lot rent. Mother testified that the family was not in danger

of losing their home because they had worked out a payment plan with the lot owner.

       34
         The parents have not challenged the trial court’s rulings on their motions to
reinstate visitation.

                                             55
Father also said that they were not in danger of losing their home. Both parents

maintained that their financial troubles were attributable to their inability to work full

time due to the time it took to work services. Mother and Father anticipated that

Father would be able to work full time after he finished his services and would thus

be able to provide for the family. A jury could have reasonably concluded that this

factor weighs against terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.

       As to (1) the parents’ acts or omissions indicating that the existing parent–child relationship

is not a proper one and (2) any excuse for the parents’ acts or omissions, Mother and Father both

acknowledged the reasons for the children’s removal and accepted responsibility for

the violence that the children had witnessed in the home. They each admitted that

Father’s self-harm and the domestic violence between them had created an

environment that endangered the children’s physical and emotional well-being and

that the conduct itself had endangered the children’s physical and emotional well-

being. They also admitted to illegal drug use during the case, refusing to test, and

testing positive for illegal drugs.

       Again, the parents had recently shown progress and had made positive changes.

But Mother continued to fail to recognize the dangers of staying with Father. Villegas

was concerned that even after all the classes Mother had taken and the progress she

had made, she still maintained a relationship with Father. And although Mother

insisted that she would leave Father to get her children back, she had not done so.

Moreover, Merrill testified that Father still had issues with taking accountability for his

                                                 56
actions and was still blaming others—specifically the Department, OCOK, and

Mother—for his problems. We conclude that these factors also weigh in favor of

terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the children.

      Most of the Holley factors weigh in favor of terminating the parents’ rights to

their three children. Applying the applicable standards of review, we hold that the

evidence here is legally and factually sufficient for the jury to have formed a firm

belief or conviction that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Henry,

Beth, and Mary was in the children’s best interest. Having held that the evidence is

legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s best-interest findings, we overrule

Mother’s and Father’s seventh and eighth points.

                                    VI. Conclusion

      Having overruled all points necessary to our disposition of this appeal, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to

Henry, Beth, and Mary.

                                                       /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Justice

Delivered: March 21, 2024

                                           57