Court Opinion

ID: 9378705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 09:06:18.340118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.592328
License: Public Domain

In the
             Court of Appeals
     Second Appellate District of Texas
              at Fort Worth
           ___________________________
                No. 02-22-00442-CV
           ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A., M.A., AND P.G., CHILDREN

        On Appeal from the 360th District Court
                Tarrant County, Texas
            Trial Court No. 360-699440-21

        Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                    I. Introduction

      This is an ultra-accelerated appeal 1 in which Appellant R.V. (Mother) appeals

the termination of her parental rights to three of her children—Kyle, 2 Mindy, and

Peter3—following a bench trial and in-chambers interviews with Kyle and Mindy.

Mother’s brief fails to include an “issues presented” section or to specify what issues

she raises on appeal. Parsing through the argument section in her brief, she appears

to challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her compliance with her

court-ordered service plan and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial

court’s best-interest finding. Mother’s first argument fails because the trial court did

not terminate her parental rights based on the service-plan predicate ground. Her

second argument likewise fails because the record contains sufficient evidence to

support the trial court’s best-interest finding. Accordingly, we affirm.

      1
        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 a judgment terminating
parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice of appeal is
filed).
      2
       See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring court to use aliases to refer to minors in
an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights). All of Mother’s children, no
matter their ages, are referred to using aliases.
      3
        A fourth child, Emily, was removed with the three listed children, but she was
nineteen years old at the time of the trial and, “for the purposes of this case, is not a
child [who is the] subject of this suit.” A fifth child, Aaron, was sixteen years old and
lived in Austin with his father at the time of the removal but had lived with Mother
and his siblings in prior years.

                                            2
                                   II. Background

      A.     Life in the Home

      At the time of the children’s removal, Emily was seventeen, Kyle was fourteen,

Mindy was twelve, and Peter was four. They lived with Mother, Mother’s boyfriend

Victor, and Victor’s brother. To illustrate why it was necessary for the Department of

Family and Protective Services to remove the children from the home and why they

could not be returned to Mother’s care, we set forth a sampling of what the children

had endured before their removal, including neglect; physical and sexual abuse; labor

trafficking; and exposure to drugs, domestic violence, and prostitution:

      • The children said they would go days without food and that Victor would
        not let people take them out to eat or bring them food. Emily said that if
        they did have food, Victor ate first and only gave them a little.

      • All five kids (including Aaron when he had lived with them) slept on
        blankets on the floor in the same bedroom while Mother and Victor slept in
        the other bedroom on a “[v]ery comfortable” bed.

      • The children said that Mother had physically abused them by hitting them
        (with anything that she could find), throwing things at them, and
        withholding food from them.

      • Emily was physically abused by a couple of Mother’s boyfriends and by
        Mother. On one occasion when Mother was mad because a paramour had
        left, she beat Emily until she was bloody and then wiped the blood off the
        floor with Emily’s face. Mindy described a similar beating during which
        Mother had used Mindy’s head to wipe up blood from the floor.

      • Peter said that Mother had punished him for misbehaving by punching his
        head.

      • Emily, Mindy, and Kyle were sexually abused by Aaron.

                                           3
      • Kyle, despite being only fourteen, was not in school; instead, Victor had
        prepared fake documents and had gotten him a job at a golf cart store. Kyle
        worked 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. five days per week to pay the bills and
        support the household. Kyle said that he often used his money to buy pizza
        for himself and his siblings on the weekends.

      • Emily and Mindy told the caseworker that Victor had packaged cocaine on
        the kitchen table and that they were forced to clean up the table afterwards.
        Additionally, the girls testified that Victor had required Kyle to deliver
        cocaine.

      • Emily said that Mother’s boyfriends and the children’s fathers4 had abused
        Mother. Mother had multiple miscarriages due to the domestic violence
        inflicted on her by Victor and her other boyfriends, and she instructed the
        girls to clean up the miscarriages and dispose of the babies’ remains in the
        trash or put them in a Ziploc bag in the freezer.

      • The children witnessed an occasion when Mother tied up Peter’s dad with a
        rope, connected it to her vehicle, and dragged him around the apartment
        complex.

      • Emily believed that Mother had engaged in prostitution because men came
        to the home, gave her money, and went into the bedroom with her. Emily
        also told her therapist about “the Chicken Man,” who brought fried chicken
        to the home to occupy Emily and Mindy while he had sexual relations with
        Mother. At first, the food was used to keep the girls away from the
        bedroom. And then at some point, he started using the food as a bribe to
        inappropriately touch the girls; he grabbed their rear ends or touched their
        vaginas or put his hands uncomfortably high on their legs or grazed their
        breasts. Emily testified that he had touched her vagina and her anus inside
        her pants and her breasts for six months to one year when she was eight or
        nine years old. Emily told Mother about the touching, but instead of calling
        the police, Mother blackmailed the man for money. Mindy also testified
        about Mother’s prostitution, stating that Mother had made them sleep in the
        car when she had gone to homes or hotels to prostitute herself.

      Emily, Kyle, and Mindy shared the same father; Peter had a separate father;
      4

and Aaron had a separate father.

                                         4
The children’s permanency specialist said that there were a lot more “horrible things”

that had happened to the children than even she or the therapist had testified to.

       B.    The Removal

       The key events that preceded the children’s removal started on or about April

23, 2021. On that day, Mother called the police after Victor pushed Mindy and left a

red mark on her chest. Victor left in his truck before the police arrived.

       Three days later, Victor returned to the home at 5:00 a.m., picked up Mother,

and left. The children (as well as Mother) were fearful that Mother would be killed by

Victor. 5

       On the day of Mother’s disappearance, the Department received an intake that

reported concerns of drug use and drug selling in the home, along with domestic

violence. When the Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations supervisor and an

investigator arrived at the home, no adults were present, and none arrived during the

three hours that CPS was there. When Emily finally got Mother on the phone two

hours after CPS had arrived and told Mother that CPS was at the home and that they

were trying to get in touch with her, Mother responded, “I’m all right,” before

hanging up. She did not show any concern about why CPS was in her home and did

not ask if her children were injured or how they were doing.            After separately

interviewing Emily and Mindy, the case “was staffed for emergency removal due to

       Mother testified that Victor took her to a hotel so that they could have a
       5

conversation and kept her there until mid-day before taking her back home.

                                           5
no adult being at the home,” as well as due to concerns of active drug use and drug

packaging in the home and domestic violence.

      CPS took Mindy and Peter to the CPS office, and Emily went with the CPS

investigator to pick up Kyle from his job at a golf cart store. After all the children

were transported to Alliance for Children, the CPS investigations supervisor was

finally able to speak with Mother. Mother denied all the allegations: she said that her

children were lying, that there was no domestic violence or drug use in the home, and

that her children just did not want her to be with her boyfriend. Despite Mother’s

denial of drugs in the home, four-year-old Peter tested positive for cocaine on a hair-

follicle test. 6 The CPS investigations supervisor testified that she never spoke to

Mother’s boyfriend; he was shot and killed while the investigation was pending.

      C.     The Outcome

      After hearing testimony about the above incidents, as well as evidence related

to the best-interest ground,7 the trial court rendered a judgment terminating Mother’s

parental rights based on the endangering-environment and endangering-conduct

      6
        The other children were not tested because, according to the CPS
investigations supervisor, “children who are older can make their own decisions
[regarding] whether or not they’re going to use illegal substances.”
      7
        Emily’s therapist, the permanency specialist, Emily, and the drafter of the
CASA report opined that it was not in the children’s best interest to be returned to
Mother. More detailed testimony related to the best-interest ground is set forth below
in the best-interest analysis.

                                          6
predicate grounds, as well as the best-interest ground. Mother then perfected this

appeal.

            III. Burden of Proof and Sufficiency Standards 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. Id. 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

                                           7
factfinder could not. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). The 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 judgment 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 that Mother endangered the children and that the termination of

the parent–child relationship would be in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2); 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.

                               IV. Predicate Grounds

      As noted above in the introduction section, Mother argues in her brief that she

completed her service plan and that the trial court should not have terminated her

parental rights based on this ground.           See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(O). The trial court, however, did not terminate Mother’s parental

rights based on a failure to complete the services on her service plan but instead

terminated based on the endangering-environment and endangering-conduct

                                           8
predicate grounds, which Mother does not challenge.8          Because Mother fails to

challenge the endangerment predicate grounds that were found by the trial court, we

need not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support them. 9 Accordingly, we

overrule Mother’s argument challenging the termination order on a ground that was

not found by the trial court.

                                V. Best-Interest Ground

      In several places in her brief, Mother mentions the best-interest ground,

though she relies solely on her service-plan compliance to argue that “the best[-]

interest finding required by Texas Family Code [Section] 161.001[(b)(2)] was not

proven at trial.” Mother makes no mention and provides no analysis of the Holley

factors. See generally Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). Because, as

      8
       Instead, Mother appears to implicitly concede that she had endangered her
children but argues that her children should be returned to her because she completed
her services.
      9
       As we have previously noted when presented with a similar scenario,

      [O]ur decision to not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support
      the trial court’s findings related to Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D)
      and 161.001(b)(1)(E) does not run afoul of the Supreme Court of
      Texas’s . . . decision in In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. 2019) . . . .
      In this case, Mother does not challenge these findings, and the court in
      N.G. made it clear that its holding[—]that a reviewing court must review
      Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and 161.001(b)(1)(E) even when another
      statutory ground sufficiently supports termination[—]is predicated on
      the party’s having challenged Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and
      161.001(b)(1)(E) on appeal. Id.

In re K.A., No. 02-19-00099-CV, 2019 WL 4309168, at *11 n.4 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Sept. 12, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

                                           9
discussed more fully below, the Holley factors weigh in favor of termination, we

conclude that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s best-interest finding.

       A.     Holley Factors

       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 children’s best interest:

       (A)    the [children’s] desires . . . ;
       (B)    the [children’s] emotional and physical needs[,] . . . now and in the
              future;
       (C)    the emotional and physical danger to the child[ren] now and in
              the future;
       (D)    the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody;
       (E)    the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the
              [children’s] best interest . . . ;
       (F)    the plans for the child[ren] by these individuals or[, if applicable,]
              by the agency seeking custody;

                                                 10
      (G)    the stability of the home or proposed placement;
      (H)    the [parent’s] acts or omissions . . . indicat[ing] that the existing
             parent–child relationship is not a proper one; and
      (I)    any excuse for the [parent’s] acts or omissions.
Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72 (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 children’s best interest. Id.

On the other hand, the presence of scant evidence relevant to each factor will not

support such a finding. Id.

      B.     Evidence Pertaining to and Analysis of the Best-Interest Factors

             1.     The Children’s Desires

      Emily testified that Kyle and Peter were happy in their foster home. The

permanency specialist said that Kyle had told two different stories about whether he

wanted to go home. The permanency specialist also said that Kyle is “torn between

his past, his present, and what could be his future. And when those worlds start

colliding, it . . . literally pull[s] him apart.” Kyle loves Mother; he knows that she is

not a good parent but is concerned about not having contact with her.                The

permanency specialist opined that Kyle is not mature enough to make a decision on

                                           11
his own. 10 During Kyle’s in-chamber interview, when asked whether he would like to

return to Mother or stay in his foster placement, he said that he was not sure yet.

      Mindy said that she was happy with her foster mom and that she felt safe.11

Mindy told the permanency specialist that she did not want to return to Mother and

had threatened to self-harm if she were returned to Mother. After Mindy’s in-

chambers testimony concluded, she started weeping, and the trial court put the

following on the record:

      THE COURT: Are you afraid you’re going to have to go back to your
      mom? Does that scare you?

             ....

             [Mindy]: Yes.

            THE COURT: Okay. So you’re crying because you’re afraid you
      may have to go back to your mom? Okay. That’s terrifying to you?

             [Mindy]: Yes, ma’am.

             THE COURT: And it’s hard -- we’re on the record[,] and I just
      want to for the record. You look really scared. And that’s what you’re
      afraid about is having to go to your mom?

             [Mindy]: (Nods head.)

      10
         Additionally, Mindy—who testified in chambers prior to Kyle—said that he is
“really protective” of Mother. Mindy worried, “I don’t feel like he’s going to be, like,
truthful with his words because he’s going to feel like he’s not on [Mother’s] side.”
      11
         The CASA report dated August 11, 2022, stated that the CASA volunteer had
observed a visit on August 2, 2022, and noted that she did not see anything to indicate
a genuine connection between Mindy and Mother. The report further noted that the
relationship that Mindy and her foster mom have is a positive and nurturing one.

                                           12
         Peter, who was six years old at the time of the trial, lacked sufficient maturity to

express an opinion regarding a parental preference and did not testify at trial.

         This factor weighs in favor of termination as to Mother’s parental rights to

Mindy and is neutral as to the termination of Mother’s parental rights to Kyle and

Peter.

                2.    The Children’s Emotional and Physical Needs and the
                      Parental Abilities of the Individuals Seeking Custody

         The evidence showed that each of the children had some struggles and special

needs that place a premium on parental abilities. Kyle had been moved several times

during the case and had spent some time at Perimeter Hospital after he had attempted

to harm himself. A status report and the permanency reports 12 reflected that Kyle

had been diagnosed with, among other things, major depressive disorder, “other

trauma-and-stressor-related disorder,” borderline intellectual functioning, learning

differences in reading and writing, and significant trust issues and was on medications

for depression and agitation. The permanency specialist said that Kyle had “a long

therapeutic future” ahead and was seeing two separate therapists and a psychiatrist.

Kyle was two or three years behind in school and was reading at the level of a

kindergartener or a first grader even though he was fifteen years old.

         Mindy was also behind in school and was seeing a trauma therapist because she

was going through a lot of emotional, mental, and behavioral trauma.                    The

         At the outset of the trial, the trial court took judicial notice of the entire
         12

clerk’s record.

                                              13
permanency reports to the court showed that Mindy had been diagnosed with, among

other things, disruptive mood dysregulation, adjustment disorder with anxious mood,

and “other specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorder” and that she was on

medication for depression, anxiety, and allergies.

      As to Peter, the permanency reports to the court showed that Peter had been

diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and developmental

disorder of motor function with a focus on speech and language.          He was on

medication for allergies and congestion and was seeing a play therapist and an

occupational therapist.

      Emily testified that she was concerned that the children would not have food if

they were returned to Mother, and Emily’s therapist did not believe that Mother was

able to meet the physical and emotional needs of the children.

      The Department did not express any concerns about the parenting abilities of

the children’s current foster parents. In contrast, the Department had many concerns

about returning the children to Mother. Although Mother had completed the services

on her plan, she had not accepted responsibility for any of the reasons for the

children’s removal or the outcries that had been made since the removal, she had not

demonstrated the behaviors that she had learned in her parenting courses, and she

had failed to make substantive changes in her life. Emily’s therapist discussed how

Mother had ceded her parenting duties to Emily, requiring her to not just babysit but

to rear the children. The therapist opined, based on her knowledge of how long it

                                           14
takes to unlearn a behavior and learn a new behavior, that Mother did not have enough

tools yet (because it “takes years to develop the tools needed to create a healthy

environment”) to face “this lifetime of trauma that these kids are going through.”

       The May 18, 2022 permanency report described Mother’s parenting skills at the

visits as follows:

       [Mother] has demonstrated [that] she can recognize her kids[’] physical
       needs and address with favorite foods, clothing, and toys that they like.
       However, she still struggles with emotional outbursts, talking about the
       case in front of her kids, and then showing anger towards caregivers of
       the children, while [the] children are present. She does not recognize that
       her behavior can be construed as manipulative and hurtful for the
       children. She has been [advised] numerous times [to] focus[] on the
       positives happening in her kids[’] lives and [to] engag[e] them about
       school, extracurricular activities, and seasonal events. She continues to
       focus on any negative that presents and then blows up in front of the
       children causing a stress[ful] visit, triggering her sons to struggle following
       the visit.

       These factors weigh in favor of termination.

              3.     The Emotional and Physical Danger to the Children

       The permanency specialist believed that the events before the children’s

removal tended to show that Mother was neglectful and abusive and had allowed

sexual abuse to continue as she did not prevent it. The evidence—that Mother had

not stood up to Victor or her other paramours who had physically abused the

children—caused the Department, Emily’s therapist, the permanency specialist, and

Emily to have concerns about Mother’s willingness and ability to be protective of her

children going forward. Mother, however, claimed that she had learned how to

                                             15
protect her children.      Emily’s therapist also had concerns about Mother’s

unwillingness to “hear both sides” because of Mother’s denial of the sexual-assault

allegations and because Emily had mentioned that Mother had written Mindy and her

a letter telling them that she had forgiven them for making up lies about what was

going on in the home. Additionally, Mother had continued to cause emotional

damage to Kyle by stating at the visits in front of him that she only wanted Peter

back; this was devastating to Kyle.13

      Emily opined that it would not be wise for Mother to have access to Kyle or to

Mindy. When asked why she was concerned about the children being returned to

Mother, Emily said, “I’m scared they will get treated as I did. I’m scared for their

lives.” Mindy similarly expressed concern about Kyle’s safety if he were returned to

Mother’s care.

      The evidence showed that Mother posed an emotional and physical danger to

the children. This factor weighs in favor of termination.

       The May 18, 2022 permanency report described the emotional danger that
      13

Mother posed to the children as follows:

      [Mother had] been asked to not tell the boys about stressors that she is
      struggling with as [Kyle] personalizes them as “his fault[,]” and it is a
      trigger for him after the visit. [Mother] ha[d] been warned at every visit
      to follow the visitation guidelines but is not always compl[ia]nt with
      them. The girls have chosen not to attend weekly visits with [Mother]
      based on her dynamic with the children during the visits. [Mother]
      would make statements like, “I don’t have to get the big kids back, just
      give me back [Peter]. If you girls would learn to keep your mouth shut,
      we wouldn’t be here.”

                                          16
             4.     Plans for the Children and Stability of the Home or
                    Proposed Placement

      Mother planned to provide the children with a safe home in which there is no

domestic violence and no drugs and said that she did not intend to “have another

spouse.” But Mother admitted that she did not have a lease and that her landlord

could kick her out any day. Emily’s therapist and the children’s permanency specialist

did not believe that Mother had demonstrated an ability to provide the children with a

safe and stable environment. After the children’s removal, Mother had moved to

Dallas and then to Houston. Mother moved residences in Houston shortly before

trial and refused to provide the permanency specialist with her new address until the

week of trial. The courtesy worker in Houston was not able to view Mother’s new

home before the trial started.

      The children’s permanency specialist opined that it was in the children’s best

interest for the Department to be named as permanent managing conservator with

the right to place the children for adoption. Kyle and Peter lived in one foster home,

while Emily and Mindy lived in another foster home, and both homes were adoption

motivated. The permanency specialist said that both foster homes are safe and stable.

      These factors weigh in favor of termination.

             5.     Mother’s Acts or Omissions Indicating an Improper Parent-
                    Child Relationship and Her Excuses

      Mother’s acts and omissions indicating an improper parent–child relationship

are detailed above. As for excuses, Emily’s therapist did not believe that Mother had

                                         17
taken responsibility for the abuse and neglect that was perpetrated on the children in

the home, as demonstrated by Mother’s stating that her children were liars and that

they had mental health problems and by her blaming Victor for all her problems. 14

      During Mother’s testimony, she admitted that she had made bad choices in

men (including with the children’s fathers) and said that she had accepted her mistake

of staying with a person like Victor; she said that she would not make the same

mistake again. Besides being in a relationship with Victor, Mother said that her only

       During her testimony, Mother blamed Victor for everything that had
      14

happened:

      Q. Are you telling the Court that you were a perfect mother until Victor
      . . . came into your life?

             A. Yes.

             Q. So it’s Victor . . . that spoiled this whole thing?

            A. Unfortunately, yes. He’s the one that ruined my whole life
      and with my children.

             Q. How did he ruin your life?

             A. He ruined it by what he got himself into. And he would scold
      my children a lot, and I didn’t like that and that’s why we would have a
      lot of arguments.
Mother’s position was that she was the victim in all this because no one with the
Department would listen to her.

                                           18
other mistake was working so much that she could not keep an eye on her children.15

As for other excuses, Mother said that her children had lied about her prostituting

herself and about her having multiple partners who had perpetrated domestic violence

on her; 16 that she had never seen Victor cutting or packaging cocaine at the table and

had never instructed the children to clean the table afterwards; that she had never hit

her children but had only talked to them; 17 that she never knew that Kyle was

delivering cocaine for Victor; that Emily had lied when she said that Mother had

blackmailed “the Chicken Man” and that the man had “only touched” Emily; that she

never knew that Aaron had sexually assaulted three of his siblings; that she had never

beat her children or cleaned the floor with their faces; that she had never said in front

of Kyle that she only wanted Peter back; that Victor, not she, had been the one who

had put Kyle to work; and that she had never had any miscarriages or disposed of any

babies’ remains in the trash or put them in the freezer. Despite Mother’s numerous

denials, a factfinder is not compelled to believe testimony that comes from a biased or

an interested source. See In re M.S., No. 02-21-00007-CV, 2021 WL 2654143, at *16

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 28, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op. on reh’g).

      15
        Mother testified that she had worked from 1:00 to 9:30 p.m. at a bakery and
that her older children watched her younger children. At the time of the trial, Mother
was employed at a paint company.

       She claimed that Victor was the only one who had assaulted her and that it
      16

had happened many times.
      17
        Though later she admitted that she had spanked them or swatted them on
their hands.

                                           19
         Even if Mother’s admissions are equal to her excuses, creating a neutral factor,

the acts-and-omissions factor weighs in favor of termination.

               6.     Holding

         Based on all the evidence and applying the appropriate standards of review, we

hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s

finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights to Kyle, Mindy, and Peter was in

the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2); Jordan v. Dossey,

325 S.W.3d 700, 733 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (holding

evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding

when most of the best-interest factors weighed in favor of termination). Accordingly,

we overrule Mother’s argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support

the trial court’s best-interest finding.

                                      VI. Conclusion

         Having overruled both of the arguments that Mother raises in her brief, we

affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to Kyle, Mindy, and

Peter.

                                                        /s/ Dabney Bassel

                                                        Dabney Bassel
                                                        Justice

Delivered: March 9, 2023

                                            20