Court Opinion

ID: 9840381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 09:07:58.126358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:31:53.356445
License: Public Domain

In the
             Court of Appeals
     Second Appellate District of Texas
              at Fort Worth
           ___________________________
                No. 02-23-00188-CV
           ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., J.V., AND K.V., CHILDREN

        On Appeal from the 271st District Court
                  Wise County, Texas
            Trial Court No. CV-22-04-272

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

       After a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s and Mother’s parental

rights to their three children—Andrew, Brian, and Cathy—who, at the time of trial,

were eleven, ten, and seven years old, respectively.1 The trial court then appointed the

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) as the

permanent managing conservator of all three children. Father appealed. Mother did

not.

       Regarding Father, the trial court found that terminating his parental rights was

in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2). The trial

court also found grounds for termination under Subsections 161.001(b)(1)(E)

(engaging in dangerous conduct), (N) (constructively abandoning the children), and

(O) (failing to comply with provisions of a court order). See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E),

(N), (O).

       On appeal, Father raises three issues:

       [(1)] The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing . . . Father
       additional time to complete the court-ordered services when there was
       approximately five months left until the already extended dismissal
       date.[2]

       1
        We refer to the parents as “Father” and “Mother,” and we use pseudonyms to
identify the children and Father’s associates. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d);
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
       2
        Within Father’s first issue, he also argues that if error was not preserved, then
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

                                           2
             ....

             [(2)] The record does not support termination under [S]ubsections
      (E), (N), or (O) in this case.

             ....

            [(3)] [The Department] failed to prove that termination of
      [Father’s] parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

      We hold that (1) Father did not preserve the denial of a continuance for

appellate review,3 (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding

that Father engaged in conduct that was dangerous to the children (the ground under

Subsection (E)), and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding

that termination was in the children’s best interest. Because we hold that the evidence

was sufficient to support the ground under Subsection (E), we do not have to address

whether the evidence was sufficient under Subsections (N) and (O). See Tex. R. App.

P. 47.1; In re A.N., No. 02-22-00036-CV, 2022 WL 2071966, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth June 9, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We overrule all three issues and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

      3
        And to the extent that Father asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by not preserving his first issue, we hold that the record does not support
Father’s complaint.

                                           3
                                      I. EVIDENCE

A. The Investigator

      1. Before February 2022

      The Department investigator, Susan Cumpton, said that she was aware that

Father had a CPS history in Texas dating back to 2019. Cumpton said that the

previous case involved allegations of drug use and that a court had ordered Father to

participate in services, but he did not. Cumpton related that the Department had

found reason to believe for neglectful supervision twice—once in early 2020 and once

eight months later that same year, but on the latter occasion, she asserted that the

Department had ruled out an allegation of physical neglect.

      2. February 9, 2022

      Cumpton went to Father’s house on February 9, 2022, after he had gotten out

of jail. Cumpton said that when she went to Father’s house, she told him that the

children had made an outcry that he was drinking to excess and passing out.

According to Cumpton, Father refused to take a drug test, refused to let her come

inside his house, and refused to talk to her.

      Cumpton was able, however, to observe the area outside the house, which she

described as unsafe for children. She explained that the yard was filled with broken-

down cars and kitchen appliances, like refrigerators and stoves. She said that the

weeds stood two to three feet tall.

                                            4
         In contrast to the condition of the yard, Cumpton noticed that every corner of

Father’s house had a very advanced security-system camera. Cumpton explained that,

based on her experience, the security system suggested that Father might be selling

drugs from the house.

         3. April 8, 2022

         Cumpton returned to Father’s house on April 8, 2022. This time she came

with an order to have Father drug tested.

         This time she also went with sheriff’s deputies because she was concerned for

her safety. Cumpton said that during all these investigations, Father was described as

being uncooperative and aggressive. When asked why she was afraid, she responded,

“Because [Father] has never participated in a calm[,] safe manner. It’s always been in

an aggressive manner towards any investigators. It’s documented throughout every

case.”

         Cumpton said that Father was again not cooperative, but the children’s

grandfather was; it was the grandfather who let Cumpton into the house. The inside,

Cumpton said, was like two homes. On the one side, the house was very clean; the

children’s grandparents lived on that side of the house. The other side was filthy with

trash everywhere; Cumpton said that Father’s room was so dirty that she could not

see the floor because it was littered with rotting food and trash. Throughout the

kitchen and Father’s room were empty liquor bottles. She said, “There [were] beer

cans all over the place, empty whiskey bottles outside, inside, in the kitchen . . . . I

                                            5
probably stopped counting at like [twelve] or [thirteen].” The children all shared one

room, which she described as not very clean.

      Cumpton said the children’s grandfather told her that Father was back in his

room. The grandfather knocked on Father’s door for about twenty minutes, but

Father never answered. The deputies then knocked on the door, and about ten or

twenty minutes later, Father’s girlfriend, Hailey, answered the door. Hailey told them

that Father was not there because he had gone to court. When Cumpton responded

that she did not believe Hailey, Hailey denied knowing where Father was. The

sheriff’s deputies searched the house, and one of the officers found Father in either a

laundry room or a bathroom hiding under a sheet.

      While there, the officers arrested Hailey for possession of heroin and a parole

violation. And while there, the children’s grandparents informed Cumpton that they

were about to return to Florida.

      Cumpton said that the environment was very unsafe for the children. When

asked how the environment was dangerous, Cumpton responded, “Well, the alcohol

bottles alone left out to children were concerning. The mold inside the home was

concerning for them for breathing, feeding. Just generally the place was not a healthy

environment for them.”

      Cumpton said that she had an opportunity to review the court’s service plan

with Father and that he did not ask her any questions. To her knowledge, he had not

completed any of the services. Cumpton said that she set up a drug test for Father,

                                          6
but he did not take it, so she set up a second drug test for him, but he did not take

that test either.

       4. April 14, 2022

       Cumpton made a follow-up appointment for April 14, 2022, to visit Father’s

home and inspect it while the children were still there. The children were healthy, but

Father was not present, although the children’s grandfather was. Cumpton said that

while she was standing outside, Father drove up in his car, but when he saw her, he

put the car in reverse and then took off. Cumpton said that she made several

attempts to call Father, but most of her calls just went to voice mail. When Father

eventually answered, Cumpton said that he slurred his words so badly that she could

not understand anything that he was trying to say.

       5. April 18, 2022

       Cumpton related that when the case was later staffed, her supervisor stated that

because of an inability to address their concerns about Father, i.e., his drug and

alcohol use, the Department needed to remove the children.4 The trial court signed

an order for protection on April 18, 2022.

       4
        Cumpton never articulated how, if at all, the grandparents’ presence in the
home factored into the decision not to remove the children earlier. However, the
grandparents’ warnings that they were leaving for Florida would have been an obvious
catalyst motivating the removal.

                                             7
      6. The Investigator’s Summation

      When asked at trial why Father presented a danger to the children, Cumpton

responded, 5

      A. He can be irrational. . . . [T]hroughout this case he hasn’t even
      appeared to engage with his children. I don’t know if he would put their
      needs before his own.

              Q. Could that be seen in the fact that his home and his yard were
      littered with alcohol, empty alcohol beverage containers?

               A. Yes, ma’am. And the children stated their concerns for him.

            Q. And obviously someone who is intoxicated would not be able
      to properly supervise children; is that correct?

               A. That’s correct.

               Q. Was it to the level that it appeared that he was using alcohol?

               A. That’s correct.

            Q. Is it the Department’s position that his parental rights should
      be terminated?

               A. That’s correct.

Elaborating, Cumpton said that the children had expressed concerns about Father:

“[They said that Father] drinks to excess[,] and he passes out. They don’t know if he’s

alive or dead.     I mean they are concerned he won’t wake up.”            According to

Cumpton, the children said that Father drank to excess every day. The children knew

that Father drank whiskey, but they did not know which kind.

      5
        In his brief, Father complains that the testimony was conclusory. Because of
this concern, we quote rather than summarize certain portions of the testimony.

                                             8
       Regarding how the children managed while in Father’s care, Cumpton said that

they learned to take care of themselves. She said, “They talked about cooking for

themselves. They talked about making sure each other got up for school. They were

each other’s . . . support system . . . .”

B. The Caseworker

       The Department caseworker, Miranda Daugherty, had the case since the trial

court entered temporary orders in late April 2022.

       1. Mother

       Daugherty contacted Mother. Mother’s description of her relationship with

Father raised concerns:

       [Mother] said it was an unhealthy relationship. She said that [Father]
       cheated on her frequently and at times would be aggressive in her
       vicinity. Like he would hit the wall or a chair when he was mad at her.
       And she said that one time when she was pregnant that he had actually
       opened the door and like hit her in the belly with the door handle.

       2. The Home

       Daugherty said that initially the children’s grandparents were living in the

house, but they moved to Florida shortly after the case began. Father’s girlfriend,

Hailey, lived there too, but she moved out as well. Beyond that, Daugherty could not

say who was living there.

       Daugherty said that before the children’s grandparents moved to Florida, she

was let into the house; after the grandparents moved, Father did not let her into the

house. Daugherty said that the front three rooms were clean, but the others had

                                             9
garbage stacked on the floor. She described the outside as having “multiple cars

without license plates in varying levels of being taken apart.             There [were]

taken[-]apart hot tubs, lawnmowers, [and] appliances[] just left out and around on the

ground. The grass was always overgrown. It was just hazardous . . . .”

      3. Father’s Criminal History

      Daugherty was aware that while Father lived in Kansas, he had several DWIs

and eventually had his driver’s license revoked due to the DWIs. While in Texas,

Father had one arrest for public intoxication and other arrests not related to alcohol.

      4. Concerns about Father

      According to the children, Father drank excessively. One of the children

asserted that Father also used drugs but could not identify which drugs.

      Daugherty expressed the Department’s concerns as follows:

      There were concerns for his mental health and his mental stability.
      There were concerns for domestic violence. There were concerns for
      his ability to care for the children financially. There were concerns with
      the home not being in a safe condition. There were concerns that there
      were friends of [Father] with criminal histor[ies] that were residing in the
      home. His girlfriend, [Hailey], for example, had [a] criminal history[,]
      and she was residing there with him. And then the concern of hi[s]
      participating in criminal activities himself.

      Daugherty explained the risks associated with criminal activities: “He puts them

at risk by exposing them to potential violence, potential substances. He puts them at

risk for being left unattended if he were to be arrested while being the sole caregiver

for the children.”

                                           10
Daugherty continued to address the Department’s various concerns:

Q. And what about alcohol use?

        A. There is a concern of his alcohol use that he would not be able
to properly supervise the children or to ensure that they were receiving
all the care that they needed.

      Q. And domestic violence?

      A. There is a concern with the domestic violence. Both with his
more recent relationship with [Christy, a former girlfriend,] as well as his
previous relationship with [Mother]. The concern is that he is exposing
violence around the children and putting them at risk for being caught
[between] him and her and being involved in the violence.

      Q. So did you say that there is a risk for physical harm?

      A. Yes.

      Q. What about emotional damage? Could the child[ren] suffer
emotional damage when they are exposed?

      A. Yes, they did.

      Q. How is that?

        A. Children who grow up in domestic violence households . . .
often suffer from traumatic experiences witnessing your parent hurting
someone else that you care about in your home. It’s traumatic. It makes
them feel unsafe[,] and it impacts their ability to create a lasting bond in
a relationship.

      Q. Is that essential to a loss of trust?

      A. Yes.

      Q. And does the Department believe that if the children were
returned to him[,] they would continue to be exposed to that kind of
behavior and that kind of environment?

                                     11
             A. Yes.

            Q. Is that based on the long history that we discovered that
      [Father] has?

             A. Yes.

      Daugherty elaborated that while the case was pending, Father failed to alleviate

the Department’s concerns:

      He has failed to demonstrate that he could care for the children. He has
      failed to demonstrate that he can interact well with the children because
      he has not attended his visitation. He has failed to demonstrate that he
      can be sober and maintain that sobriety while caring for the children.
      He has failed to demonstrate that his home can be a safe and stable
      environment for the children.

Daugherty affirmed that Father had not done anything on his service plan in the three

months before trial.

      Daugherty opined that giving Father more time would not change the situation:

      Q. And is it safe to say that by not doing what he’s supposed to do he
      has shown that he is not . . . going to change anything. If he can’t
      change during the course of a case when he doesn’t have his kids[,] do
      you expect him to change after if he was given more time?

             A. I do not anticipate him making any of those changes.

             Q. . . . [H]e hasn’t done it yet; correct?

             A. Correct.

      Regarding the children’s current status, Daugherty said that they had been

placed together in a home that was open to adoption:

      Q. Are they in an adoptive placement?

                                           12
             A. It is an adoptive foster home.

             Q. Are they adoption motivated at this point even though it’s only
      been [three] months?

             A. Pretty much. I think they are still trying to feel it out.

             Q. What have you told the older children about what they want to
      do?

             ....

              A. The older [two] want to stay there. [Cathy], she still wants to
      come home with her dad[,] but she knows it’s not safe. And the parents
      are still feeling it out.

C. Father

      1. Visited Children Rarely

      Father admitted that despite having the opportunity to visit his children on a

weekly basis, he had seen them only twice in the past twelve months.

      2. Provided No Financial Support; Sent No Cards or Gifts

      Father admitted that while the children were in the Department’s care, he

provided no money to help support them. He denied knowing that giving the

children cards or gifts for the holidays was an option.

      3. Failed to Show Up for Court

      When asked why he had not shown up for court hearings in the past year,

Father responded, “I didn’t know I had court.” He also explained that he had been

very spiteful and depressed, so he “didn’t do anything for at least the first [six],

[seven], [or eight] months.” Despite being depressed, he did not seek help.

                                            13
      4. Failed to Work Services

      Father admitted that he had been given a court order telling him what he

needed to do to get his children back. The caseworker went over the order with him.

He also admitted not following that order.

      5. Multiple Arrests; Jailed at Time of Trial

      Father conceded that at the time of trial, he was in jail for violating a protective

order. Father was not sure how many times he had been arrested in the past year, but

he knew it was at least three times. He was arrested for possession of a controlled

substance in October 2022. And in January 2023, he was arrested for bodily-injury

assault with family violence. In February 2023, he was arrested for aggravated assault

with a weapon and for interfering with an emergency call. While in jail, he was also

charged with continuous violence against a family member. Then in March 2023, he

was arrested for violating a protective order. Father said that he had been arrested

twice for violating a protective order—once when the person who was the subject of

the protective order was giving him a ride to his lawyer’s office, and once when he

was home alone. Regarding the arrest at home, Father explained that he was ordered

not to come within 500 feet of his house.

      Father acknowledged that his former girlfriend, Christy, was the alleged victim

in all these offenses. Father maintained that Christy had punched him in the face and

broken his grandfather clock, and her actions somehow resulted in his January or

February 2023 arrest. Father maintained that that was the first time that he and

                                            14
Christy had gotten into a physical altercation. Father denied striking her or any other

woman.

      6. The Children, Mother, Child Support, and Possession

      Father conceded that he was ordered to pay child support to Mother but never

paid any because he had the children.6 He further acknowledged that despite having

the children, he never went to the trial court to change the child-support orders.

      7. Father’s Finances

      Father said that he was self-employed, owned his own home, and paid his own

bills. When asked what he did, he responded, “I fix stuff.” He explained that he

worked as a plumber, an electrician, and an auto mechanic. He typically worked

fifteen to twenty hours a week and made $300 to $400 per week. Father said that he

moved into his house in 2015 and had it paid off by 2018.

      Father did not have a vehicle. He said Christy “blew it up.” Father maintained

that he would use his tax refund to help purchase another vehicle.

      8. Father’s Future Plans

      Father asked for an opportunity to get his children back. He denied previously

being given an opportunity. He cited his long stretch of depression during the first

seven months and, more recently, his incarceration to support his assertion that he

had not previously been given an opportunity.

      6
       Father explained that after the court proceedings with Mother concluded, she
had the children for four to six weeks before she left them with him.

                                           15
         Father maintained that he had quit drinking and had also cleaned up his house

and the yard. Father said that he had also talked to his sister about her watching the

children in his absence. His sister, he asserted, lived only about twenty minutes from

his house.

         Father acknowledged that he could not take possession of the children

immediately after the trial because he was in jail. Father explained that his primary

concern was his “legal stuff.” He stated that he thought he would bond out the week

after trial, but he conceded that he “[did]n’t actually have a really good reason to say

that.”

D. CASA

         The court-appointed special advocate (CASA), 7 Kris Tamplen, testified that the

children loved Father. On the other hand, Tamplen said that the children seemed to

recognize that he could not provide them a stable home: “Like [Andrew] has told me

that he loves his dad but he does not deserve to go back. [Brian] has just said he is

very happy where he is. And [Cathy] loves where she is but misses her dad.”

                                       II. ISSUES

A. Continuance

         In Father’s first issue, he contends that the trial court should have granted him

a continuance so that he could work his services. On April 12, 2023, the trial court

      In re L.T., No. 02-22-00197-CV, 2022 WL 15053329, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort
         7

Worth Oct. 27, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                            16
signed an order extending the dismissal date to October 20, 2023. The trial was in

May 2023. Father contends that he should have been allowed to use the additional

time.

        Father’s counsel did not move for a continuance. To the extent that Father’s

pro se request at trial for additional time constituted a motion for continuance, Father

was not entitled to hybrid representation, and the trial court did not have to rule on

any pro se request. See In re Z.D.R.R., No. 05-23-00094-CV, 2023 WL 2259151, at *1

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 28, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re H.O., 555 S.W.3d

245, 247 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). 8

        In the alternative, if this issue was not preserved, Father asserts that his trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We disagree.

        To establish ineffective assistance, Father must show both (1) that his trial

counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that his trial counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced his case.        In re M.M., No. 02-21-00153-CV, 2021 WL

4898665, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 21, 2021, pets. denied) (mem. op.).

Father can do neither.

        An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegation in a termination proceeding

must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively show the

       H.O. does not identify itself as an opinion on motion for rehearing. 555
        8

S.W.3d at 246. It issued, however, after the father—who was represented by
counsel—filed a pro se motion for rehearing, id. at 247 n.1, and after the court had
withdrawn its earlier opinion, id. at 246–47.

                                            17
alleged ineffectiveness and the resulting harm. Id. at *9. When the record is silent

regarding counsel’s reasons for doing or not doing something, we may not speculate

to find that trial counsel was ineffective.     Id.   Only when the conduct was so

outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it can we conclude that

the challenged conduct constituted ineffective assistance. Id. at *8.

       Here, the record does not contain trial counsel’s explanations regarding why he

did not move for a continuance. And given the fact that at the time of trial, Father

had not worked services, was incarcerated, and would remain incarcerated for an

unknown length of time, we cannot conclude that counsel’s failure to move for a

continuance was conduct so outrageous that no competent attorney would have

engaged in it. See id. at *8–9.

       Additionally, the record does not show any harm caused by trial counsel’s

failure to move for a continuance. Promises of change if given the chance, while

undoubtedly well intentioned, provide no assurance of the children’s future well-

being. In re G.A.B., No. 09-22-00062-CV, 2022 WL 3452272, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Aug. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74, 83

(Tex. App.—Waco 2012, pet. denied)). Father had not participated in services to

prevent his children’s removal, and twelve months after their removal, he still had not

participated in any services to earn them back. Assuming Father made improvements,

relatively recent improvements in lifestyle do not necessarily negate a criminal history,

drug use, or violent behavior. Id. (citing In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 316–17 (Tex.

                                           18
2021)). Father’s conduct both before and after the removal rendered any short-lived

improvements immaterial.

      We overrule Father’s first issue.

B. Sufficiency

      Father attacks the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting both

the best-interest finding and the grounds findings.

      1. Legal Requirements

      To terminate a parent–child relationship, the Department must prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the parent’s actions satisfy at least one statutory

predicate ground listed in Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is

in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2). Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1), (2), 161.206(a), (a-1); J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d at 312; In re J.L.,

163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005).

      2. Standard of Review

      When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting termination findings,

we must determine whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or

conviction that the challenged findings were true. In re Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541, 545

(Tex. 2020). Both legal and factual sufficiency turn on this question; the distinction

between the two analyses “lies in the extent to which disputed evidence contrary to a

finding may be considered.” In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tex. 2018).

                                            19
      In our legal sufficiency analysis, we view the evidence “in the light most

favorable to the finding,” assuming that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor

of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could have done so and disregarding all

evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved. Z.N., 602 S.W.3d at 545;

see A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 630–31.

      “Factual sufficiency, in comparison, requires weighing disputed evidence

contrary to the finding against all the evidence favoring the finding” to determine if

“in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence a reasonable factfinder could not

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

formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true.” A.C., 560 S.W.3d at

631; see In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009) (“When the factual sufficiency of

the evidence is challenged, only then is disputed or conflicting evidence under

review.”).

      The two sufficiency determinations overlap in many respects; if the evidence is

factually sufficient, it is necessarily legally sufficient. In re A.S., No. 02-16-00076-CV,

2016 WL 3364838, at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 16, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Because Father challenges both legal and factual sufficiency, we will conduct a

consolidated review.

                                            20
      3. Grounds: Conduct-Based Endangerment

      Father challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s conduct-

based endangerment finding under Subsection (E).             See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(E).

             a. The Law on Conduct-Based Endangerment

      A predicate finding under Subsection (E) supports termination if the trial court

concludes that the parent “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with

persons who engaged in conduct [that] endanger[ed] the physical or emotional well-

being of the child.” Id. Subsection (E) requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious

course of conduct rather than a single act or omission. In re A.O., No. 02-21-00376-

CV, 2022 WL 1257384, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 28, 2022, pet. denied)

(mem. op.). The evidence of a parent’s endangering course of conduct is not limited

to actions directed toward the child; indeed, the trial court may consider actions

before the child’s birth and actions while the child is not in the parent’s presence

because all such actions may create an inference that similar conduct could recur and

jeopardize a child’s well-being. Id.; see J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345.

              b. Discussion

       The evidence showed that Father drank to excess to the point that he passed

out and that his children feared he would not wake up. The children expressed

concern because Father’s excessive drinking happened every day. Father maintained

that he had given up drinking, but the trial court, as the factfinder, did not have to

                                            21
believe him. The trial court was the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and was

free to believe or disbelieve the various witnesses’ testimony. In re J.B., No. 02-21-

00239-CV, 2021 WL 6144074, at *23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 30, 2021, pet.

denied) (mem. op.).

      The question of whether Father used drugs was never definitively resolved.

When the Department asked Father to take drug tests, he refused. His refusal,

however, did not preclude a finding that Father used drugs. In a civil proceeding, a

rational factfinder could have reasonably concluded that Father refused to take drug

tests because he knew that the results would come back positive. See Baxter v.

Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 1558 (1976); Gebhardt v. Gallardo, 891

S.W.2d 327, 331 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding). One of the

children asserted that Father used drugs. A rational factfinder could have reasonably

concluded that Father’s refusal to take drug tests reinforced the conclusion that

Father was using drugs and was trying to avoid detection.

      One of Father’s live-in girlfriends—Hailey—was arrested for possession of

heroin while in Father’s house. A rational factfinder could have reasonably concluded

that—through Father and other sources as well—both drugs and drug users were

finding their way into the children’s home.

      Evidence showed that Father could become angry and act violently. Mother

mentioned to Daugherty how Father would punch walls when he was angry and how

he once opened a door, causing the handle to hit her stomach while she was pregnant.

                                          22
Father denied striking any woman, but he admitted that Christy struck him and broke

his grandfather clock.    Thus, at the very least, according to Father, one of his

girlfriends was violent. Contrary to Father’s account, the police arrested him for

family violence, and the trial court issued a protective order in Christy’s favor against

Father. A rational factfinder could have reasonably concluded that violence was

present in Father’s home and that sometimes people had been injured and at other

times objects had been broken because of that violence.

      c. Holdings and Ruling

      Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient

to show that Father engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with

persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional

well-being. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256,

265–66 (Tex. 2002).

      Regarding the trial court’s findings on (N) and (O) grounds, “‘[t]o affirm a

termination judgment on appeal, a court need uphold only one [predicate] termination

ground’ plus the best interest finding.” A.N., 2022 WL 2071966, at *2 (quoting In re

N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tex. 2019)); see In re M.P., 639 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Tex.

2022). Because only one ground is necessary, and because Father’s attack on ground

(E) has failed, we need not address his attacks on the (N) and (O) grounds. See A.N.,

2022 WL 2071966, at *2; see also M.P., 639 S.W.3d at 702.

      We overrule Father’s second issue.

                                           23
       4. Best Interest

              a. Legal Principles

       Although courts generally presume that keeping children with a parent is in the

children’s best interest, In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006), the best-interest

analysis is child-centered and focuses on the children’s well-being, safety, and

development, A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631. In determining whether evidence is sufficient

to support a best-interest finding, courts review the entire record. In re E.C.R., 402

S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013). The same evidence that is probative of a Subsection

(b)(1) ground may be probative in determining the children’s best interest. Id. at 249;

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2).

Courts also consider a number of nonexclusive factors when determining the

children’s best interest:

       • the children’s desires;

       • the children’s emotional and physical needs now and in the future;

       • the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future;

       • the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody;

       • the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the children’s
         best interest;

       • the plans for the children by these individuals or by the agency seeking
         custody;

       • the stability of the home or proposed placement;

                                            24
      • 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.

See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976); see also 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 suffice 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.; 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.).

      b. Discussion

             i. The Children’s Desires

      The children loved Father, but they also understood that he was incapable of

providing them a safe and secure home.

             ii. The Children’s Emotional and Physical Needs Now and in the
                 Future

      Father was in jail. He could not provide for the children’s current needs. How

long Father would remain in jail—or prison—was unknown. Even if Father were

released, a rational factfinder could have reasonably concluded that Father had not

                                           25
addressed any of the concerns that led to the children’s removal in the first place.

Father thus could not provide for the children’s needs in the future.

      In contrast, the children were placed in a home with the prospect of being

adopted. “[S]tability and permanence are paramount considerations in evaluating the

needs of a child.” S.B. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 654 S.W.3d 246, 255

(Tex. App.—Austin 2022, pets. denied).

             iii. The Emotional and Physical Danger to the Children Now and
                  in the Future

      According to the testimony, Father’s future—assuming that he did not remain

in jail or go to prison—posed both emotional and physical dangers to the children.

      For example, Father was prone to violent outbursts; he had been arrested for

family violence. At least one of Father’s girlfriends had, according to Father, engaged

in violence. Consequently, regardless of its source, the children would likely be

exposed to family violence.

      Additionally, Father used alcohol to excess. The children feared for his well-

being, and others feared for the children because Father routinely drank to the point

of incapacitation.

      The evidence supported the conclusion that Father used drugs.           One of

Father’s live-in girlfriends was arrested for possession at the children’s home. Thus,

the evidence showed that the children were exposed to drugs and to people who used

drugs when living with Father.

                                          26
             iv. The Parental Abilities of the Individuals Seeking Custody

       Before the removal, Father was not parenting the children. The children were

effectively parenting themselves.      A rational factfinder could have reasonably

concluded that Father was not a viable custody option.

             v. The Programs Available to Assist These Individuals to Promote
                the Children’s Best Interest

       Father did not work services. The evidence showed that Father would not

avail himself of services to promote the children’s best interest.

             vi. The Plans for the Children by These Individuals or by the
                 Agency Seeking Custody

       Because Father was in jail, he had to rely on the Department to care for the

children. While the children were in the Department’s care, Father provided no

financial and precious little emotional support—he had visited them only twice in the

past year.

       In contrast, the Department hoped that the current placement would result in

the children’s adoption. A prerequisite to a valid adoption is termination of the birth

father’s and birth mother’s parental rights. In re C.W., No. 02-21-00252-CV, 2022 WL

123221, at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 13, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Absent

termination, the children would remain in a conservatorship limbo. See id.

             vii.   The Stability of the Home or Proposed Placement

       Father could not offer any stability. He was incarcerated at the time of trial,

and he could not say how long he would remain confined.

                                           27
      On the other hand, the testimony showed that the children were happy in their

current placement and that their needs were being met. Additionally, the current

placement was adoption motivated.

             viii. The Parent’s Acts or Omissions Indicating that the Existing
                 Parent–Child Relationship is Not a Proper One

      While the children lived with Father, he incapacitated himself daily with

alcohol. The children were effectively left to fend for themselves. Complicating the

children’s home life was the presence of Father’s girlfriends, who either used drugs or

engaged in violence. Father went to see the children only twice while they were in the

Department’s custody.      Based on the evidence, a rational factfinder could have

reasonably concluded that the existing parent–child relationship was not a proper one.

             ix. Any Excuse for the Parent’s Acts or Omissions

      Father blamed his failure to work services and to visit the children on his

depression, for which he sought no help, and, later, on his incarceration. Regardless

of the explanation, Father had over a year to rectify the situation and create a safe and

stable home for the children. The evidence showed that during that time, Father did

at best very little and at worst nothing toward that goal.

      C. Holdings and Ruling

      Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient

to show that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

                                           28
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2); J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 265–66 (citing C.H., 89

S.W.3d at 25).

      We overrule Father’s third issue.

                                III. CONCLUSION

      Having overruled Father’s three issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Wade Birdwell

                                                     Wade Birdwell
                                                     Justice

Delivered: September 14, 2023

                                          29