Court Opinion

ID: 9380469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-19 08:11:07.893639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.095423
License: Public Domain

Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 2023.

                                             In The

                        Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                    NO. 14-22-00723-CV

   IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., A/K/A J.T.S., H.S., A/K/A H.L.S., JR., J.S.,
             A/K/A J.D.S., A.S., A/K/A A.J.S., CHILDREN

                       On Appeal from the 312th District Court
                               Harris County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 2014-33793

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellants T.T.R. (Mother) and H.L.S. (Father) appeal the trial court’s final
decree terminating their parental rights and appointing the Department of Family
and Protective Services as sole managing conservator of their children J.S. aka J.T.S.
(Julian), J.S. aka J.D.S. (Jenna), H.S. aka H.L.S., Jr. (Hal), and A.S. aka A.J.S.,
(Alanis).1 The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on predicate grounds

       1
        Julian, Jenna, Hal, and Alanis are pseudonyms. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.8, we use fictitious names to identify the minors and other individuals involved in this
case.
of endangerment, constructive abandonment, and failure to comply with a family
service plan. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N) and (O). The trial
court terminated Father’s rights on predicate grounds of endangerment, failure to
financially support the children, and constructive abandonment. See Tex. Fam. Code
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), and (N). The trial court further found that termination
of both parents’ rights was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code §
161.001(b)(2). In four issues on appeal Mother challenges the legal and factual
sufficiency of the evidence to support the endangerment findings, termination on
grounds of constructive abandonment before all appeals were exhausted, and the
ambiguity of the family service plan. Father, also asserting four issues, challenges
the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the predicate grounds for
termination. Neither parent challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of
their parental rights is in the children’s best interest.

                                     BACKGROUND

I.     Pretrial Proceedings

       A.     Original Petition for Termination

       This case began in 2014 when the Department filed an original petition for
protection of the children. At the time the petition was filed Julian was nine years
old, Jenna was seven, Hal was six, and Alanis was three. Family service plans were
created for each parent and caseworkers reviewed the plans with the parents. The
Department became involved in the family’s lives due to a report to law enforcement
on April 1, 2014. Mother was seen driving a pickup truck with several men while
the children were unrestrained in the bed of the truck. After returning home from
going out to buy more beer, Mother was so intoxicated she was unable to walk
straight. After they returned a fight broke out and one of the men tried to hit Mother.
The children “were all running around as they usually do.” The report noted that
                                             2
every day when the children returned from school, they were unable to get into their
home until Mother arrived between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. The children, unable to get
into their home, were in danger of being injured by traffic and were seen injuring
local pets. It was also reported that Mother had been seen obtaining drugs from
someone in the apartment complex. It was reported that the children “appear pretty
skinny” and it appeared the children’s basic needs were not being met.

        Approximately 18 months later, on December 10, 2015, the trial court signed
an agreed decree in which the court appointed the Department sole managing
conservator of the children but did not terminate the parents’ rights. Both parents
were appointed possessory conservators of the children and were permitted
supervised visitation with the children after testing negative for illegal drugs. Both
parents were ordered to pay monthly child support to the Department.

        At a visit with the children on January 7, 2016, Mother “became combative
. . . , cursing at the caseworker, telling the children they were returning home and
then threw a book at [Father].” Both parents’ visits with the children were suspended
after this incident. The trial court continued to hold bi-annual status hearings at
which both the caseworker and the Child Advocate would submit reports. According
to the Child Advocate’s report Mother tested positive for cocaine on May 20, 2016,
June 20, 2016, July 19, 2016, August 11, 2016, September 13, 2016, October 24,
2016, October 27, 2016, June 15, 2017, and January 31, 2019. Father tested positive
for marijuana on May 18, 2016, and June 17, 2016. Father tested negative for drugs
on April 26, 2017, and October 27, 2016, and positive for alcohol on November 3,
2016.

        The children had been participating in family therapy with Father until
January 25, 2018, when it was discovered that Father had an open warrant for assault
of a family member. At that time reunification with Father was not pursued. Father

                                          3
was subsequently arrested on the warrant, convicted, and sentenced to two years’
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.

      During the time following appointment of the Department as sole managing
conservator the children were in foster homes that were meeting the children’s
physical and emotional needs.

      B.     Motion to Modify

      On March 26, 2019, the Department filed a motion to modify the parent-child
relationship and to terminate both parents’ rights to the four children. At that time
the children were ages 14, 12, 10, and 8. The Department alleged that the
circumstances of the children, a conservator, or other party affected by the order had
materially and substantially changed since rendition of the order. The Department
sought termination of Mother’s parental rights on grounds of endangerment, failure
to support, constructive abandonment, and failure to follow a family service plan.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (N), and (O). The Department
sought termination of Father’s parental rights on the same grounds.

      The trial court continued to hold regular status hearings with detailed reports
from the caseworker and the Child Advocate. In June 2021 Father was released from
prison and returned to Houston. Father went to Julian’s foster home, removed him
from the foster home, and took him to Father’s home. Julian communicated with the
Child Advocate and assured the Child Advocate he was safe, but refused to give the
address of Father’s home. On September 2, 2021, the trial court signed an order in
which it ordered both parents to comply with their family service plans. The trial
court further found that Julian was not placed with a relative or other designated
caregiver because he, at the age of 16, left foster care. The trial court further ordered
that there should be no visitation between the three younger children and either
                                           4
parent, and that the parents could not use the older children to contact the younger
children. The trial court continued regular status hearings until the final hearing
began April 27, 2022.

II.   Final Hearing

      Jamesha Cherry, the Department caseworker at the time of the final hearing,
testified that she had been assigned to the case since August 2020. At the time of the
final hearing the children were ages 16, 15, 13, and 11. The children initially came
into the care of the Department in April 2014 “due to being able to roam freely while
their mother was intoxicated.” At the time of the final hearing Julian, the oldest child,
was living with Father and the three younger children were living with their paternal
aunt and uncle who were willing to adopt the children.

      At the time the children came into the Department’s care they lived in a home
with no water or gas. The children had to find food on their own, which “led them
to digging in garbage cans.” The children’s clothes “had a stench to them,” and there
were “roaches and rats in the home.” The Department told Father the conditions the
children were living in, and Cherry testified that, to her knowledge, Father did
nothing to mitigate their environment.

      The Department did not believe Mother could provide a safe, stable
environment for the children due to Mother’s alcohol and substance abuse. The
Department was named sole managing conservator of the children in 2015 and the
parents were named possessory conservators. The parents were ordered to provide
monthly child support and were permitted visitation with the children upon a
negative drug test.

      After the Department was appointed sole managing conservator the children
were placed in foster homes that met their physical, emotional, and educational

                                           5
needs. The children were eventually placed with their paternal aunt and uncle who
made sure the children were well fed and lived in a neat and clean environment free
of odors and rodents.

      The Department developed a family service plan reasonably tailored to
address Mother’s issues and aid in reunification with her children. The service plan
requested Mother to:

          • Complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all
            recommendations;
          • Complete a psychosocial             evaluation   and    follow    all
            recommendations;
          • Complete a domestic violence assessment and follow all
            recommendations, if needed;
          • Provide proof of housing and income;
          • Refrain from criminal activities;
          • Participate in twelve-step meetings; and
          • Remain in contact with the caseworker.
      The request for a domestic violence assessment was made because Mother
had engaged in an altercation with Father during supervised visitation with the
children. Mother completed a substance abuse assessment, psychosocial assessment,
domestic violence assessment, parenting classes, and a battering intervention
program. It was recommended that Mother attend individual and group therapy for
substance abuse, but Mother refused to participate and was placed on “inactive
status” with the treatment facility “due to disrespecting the people that try to get her
set up with services[.]”

      The Department further requested that Mother submit to weekly drug testing,
but Mother failed to submit to testing each time she was asked. It was explained to
Mother that a missed drug test would be considered a positive result. On March 30,

                                           6
approximately one month before the final hearing, Mother submitted to a urinalysis
but refused to submit to a hair follicle test. The reason Mother gave for refusing to
submit to the hair follicle test was that those tests “keep coming back positive, and
that’s not true.” Mother denied any drug use at all.

      At the time of the final hearing Mother was not allowed visitation with the
children because of the altercation that occurred between Mother and Father while
the parents were visiting the children.

      With regard to Father, Cherry testified that Father was aware of the
Department’s involvement when the children initially came into care. Father made
no efforts at that time to “mitigate the children’s situation.” The Department’s
biggest concern about Father was his conviction and two-year imprisonment for
assault of a family member. Father did not take responsibility for his crime but
asserted that his accuser had lied. Father was released from prison in June 2020 and
lived in a halfway house until October 2020. From October 2020 through August
2021 Father took no action to maintain contact with his children.

      The Department developed a family service plan with which Father complied.
The Department, however, was unable to consider Father for placement of the
children because Father had allowed Julian to live with him although Julian was
supposed to be living with his aunt and uncle at the time. Father was not meeting
Julian’s medical needs at the time Julian lived with him. Julian was also not attending
school.

      As to child support Cherry testified that Mother had been ordered to pay $100
per month and Father had been ordered to pay $200. Neither parent paid any support
to the children’s caregivers.

      On April 25, the Monday before the final hearing, Cherry visited Father’s

                                          7
home and found that Mother was also there. Cherry testified that Father’s home was
not an appropriate placement for the children due to “trash that is surrounding the
residence, the people that are hanging outside the – all of the loose animals, the dogs
over there.” Cherry testified that the individuals loitering outside Father’s home
made her feel unsafe. Cherry was unable to inspect the inside of the home because
Mother refused entry.

      Cherry testified that since she had been appointed to the case neither parent
had shown the ability to provide for the children’s physical and emotional needs. If
the children were returned to their parents Cherry was concerned that they would not
have their medical needs met and would not be enrolled in school.

      Cherry further testified that Julian was not enrolled in school and did not want
to attend school. The Child Advocate had helped Julian start the process of enrolling
in a GED program. Julian wanted to work but was unable to obtain employment
because he did not have a copy of his birth certificate with which to obtain a state
identification card. Julian asked his parents to help him obtain his birth certificate,
but they had not done so.

      The three youngest children had been living with their paternal aunt and uncle
since June 2020. The paternal aunt (Aunt) testified that neither parent demonstrated
an ability to care for the children’s physical and emotional needs. Aunt testified that
if the children were returned to their parents, they would most likely suffer emotional
breakdowns. When the children first came to Aunt they had behavior issues and
difficulty communicating and expressing themselves.

      Hal, 13 years old at the time of the final hearing, testified that his desire was
to remain with his aunt and uncle. Hal could not remember the last time he had any
contact with his parents. Jenna, 15 years old at the time of the final hearing, testified
that she wished to be adopted by her aunt and uncle because she felt loved in their
                                           8
home and was able to stay with her siblings. When asked whether she would like to
maintain contact with her parents in the future Jenna responded that she would not.

      David Begley, the Child Advocate for the three youngest children, testified
that he came into the case approximately six months before the final hearing. Begley
noticed the children were bonded with their aunt and uncle, were involved in
extracurricular activities, and had improved their grades in school. Begley testified
that it would be “emotionally devastating” if the children were removed from their
aunt and uncle. Begley testified that Jenna was working on a school assignment that
prompted her to answer what one thing she would change if she could change
anything. Jenna responded that “she would change her parentage because then she
wouldn’t know hunger or abandonment.”

      Carrie Hendricks-Helm, another Child Advocate assigned to all four children,
had been on the case since February 2017. Hendricks-Helm testified to the positive
changes in the children since moving in with their aunt and uncle. Alanis used to
need special education at school, but since living with her aunt and uncle, her grades
improved and she no longer needed extra help in school. Hendricks-Helm testified
that she regularly met with the parents, especially with Mother. In her opinion,
neither parent demonstrated an ability to care for the children’s physical and
emotional needs.

      Hendricks-Helm testified that although Julian supposedly lived with Father,
Julian actually stayed at a friend’s house most of the time. Neither parent helped
Julian obtain a copy of his birth certificate so he could apply for a GED program or
a job. Julian lived with Father for several months, but Father did not make sure Julian
was enrolled in school or that he received medical care.

      After the Department rested, Father testified. Father testified that he made a
dental appointment for Julian, but Julian backed out before seeing the dentist. Father
                                          9
further testified that he did not help Julian enroll in school or obtain his birth
certificate because he thought the Department was handling those tasks. Father
testified that he was unable to support his children because his brother, the children’s
uncle and caregiver, refused to answer Father’s phone calls. Later Father testified
that he sent money to his children’s caregivers upon his release from prison in June
2020. Father testified that he did not know Mother was at his home and she does not
live with him. Father denied that it was his responsibility to ensure that Julian was
enrolled in school or a GED program.

      On cross-examination Father denied fighting with Mother in front of the
children, which led to suspension of visitation with the children. When Father found
out Julian was not attending school, he told Julian to contact the caseworker to see
if she could help him enroll.

      Mother began her testimony in the videoconference hearing after Father
rested. Due to technical difficulties the trial court recessed the final hearing and
resumed on May 18, 2022. The trial court determined that Mother’s testimony via
electronic means was not productive in that Mother interrupted other witnesses and
her own attorney. The trial court determined that Mother’s testimony should resume
in person. Due to illness Mother did not appear in person on May 18, 2022. The trial
court recessed and required Mother to appear in person to resume testimony on June
23, 2022.

      The final hearing resumed at 10:00 a.m. on June 23, 2022. As of 11:28 a.m.
Mother had not appeared. The trial court allowed Mother to appear and testify over
the phone because Mother was not able to appear in person. Mother testified that the
only one of her children she had spoken with since 2015 was Julian. When asked
about completion of the family service plan Mother became argumentative and
responded, “The Judge never acknowledged nothing I’ve done.” The trial court gave

                                          10
Mother’s counsel an opportunity to speak with Mother and explain the need for her
testimony. After allowing Mother’s attorney to speak with her, Mother returned to
the phone and stated, “I’m not going to let – keep sitting and listen to her dumb ass
shit.” At that time the trial court removed Mother from the hearing. Because
Mother’s counsel had no further witnesses he rested.

      The Department sought to re-open its case in chief because Julian’s
circumstances had substantially changed since the beginning of the final hearing.
Caseworker Cherry testified that Julian left Father’s home, returned to his foster
home, and did not intend to return to Father’s home. The foster parents were ensuring
that Julian received medical and dental care that he had needed. Cherry testified that
it was not safe for Julian to return to Father’s home. Father had not attempted to see
Julian since Julian left Father’s home. Julian’s foster mother was enrolling him in a
credit recovery program to allow Julian to catch up in school. The foster mother also
assisted Julian in seeking employment.

      The trial court conducted an in-chamber interview with Julian in which Julian
told the court that he left the foster home in May 2021 and moved in with Father.
Julian reported that he asked both his parents to help him obtain state-issued
identification, but neither parent would help him. Julian dropped out of tenth grade
in high school after moving in with Father. After dropping out of school Julian
“linked up with people from a gang” to earn money. Julian said that Father knew he
was spending time with gang members. Julian spent time at his cousin’s house at
which “there was always fights; you know, people drawing guns; stuff of that sort.”

      While Julian lived at Father’s house, Mother would occasionally visit, and the
parents would “get into altercations.” Julian saw Father push Mother onto the floor,
and on another occasion saw Father punch Mother, resulting in Mother’s mouth
bleeding. Julian testified that he witnessed his parents engage in domestic abuse

                                         11
“around every weekend.” Julian also described an instance in which Father
threatened to harm his oldest daughter’s boyfriend if the boyfriend did not give
Father money.

      When Julian confronted Father about the domestic abuse and the failure to
help him obtain identification, Father told Julian, “he was tired of hearing it and that
[Julian] should just go back with [his] foster mom.” Julian told the court that the
domestic abuse was affecting his mental health and caused him to consider harming
himself. Julian testified that at the time the children originally came into care the
domestic abuse between his parents was worse than what he witnessed while living
with Father. When asked what he thought about the termination of his parents’
rights, Julian said, “I’d love to see that happen” because his parents were not fit to
care for him or his younger siblings.

      Each of the three younger children spoke with the trial court in chambers. All
of the children expressed a desire to remain with their aunt and uncle and not live
with their parents. Alanis, who was 11 years old, told the trial court that she would
be very upset if she were returned to either of her parents. Alanis explained that she
did not “want to have anything to do with what [Mother]’s doing.” Alanis also told
the trial court that she would be upset if she were returned to Father. When asked
why she would be upset Alanis responded that Father was “not a good person to be
around,” and would not “be there if [she] needed anything.” In contrast Alanis said
her aunt and uncle were “always there for me.”

      After the final hearing the trial court found that the circumstances of the
Children Conservators, or other party affected by the prior order had materially and
substantially changed since the rendition of the prior order and the appointment of
the Department as sole managing conservator would be a positive improvement for
the children. The trial court terminated both parents’ parental rights on the predicate

                                          12
grounds of endangerment and constructive abandonment. See Tex. Fam. Code §
161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N). The trial court further found by clear and convincing
evidence that Mother failed to comply with a family service plan and Father failed
to support the children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(F) and (O). Further
finding that termination would be in the best interest of the children, the trial court
terminated both parents’ rights and appointed the Department as sole managing
conservator. Both parents filed timely appeals.

                                       ANALYSIS

      In Mother’s appeal she challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the
evidence to support the predicate grounds of endangerment. Mother further asserts
that the trial court erred in finding constructive abandonment because the “parents
had not exhausted all appeals.” Finally, Mother asserts the trial court erred in finding
that she failed to comply with the family service plan because the plan was
ambiguous.

      In Father’s appeal he challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the
evidence to support the predicate grounds for termination. Neither parent challenges
the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interest of the children.

I.    Standards of Review

      In a proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship under Texas Family
Code section 161.001, the petitioner, in this case the Department, must establish by
clear and convincing evidence one or more acts or omissions enumerated under
subsection (1) of section 161.001(b) and that termination is in the best interest of the
child under subsection (2). Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001; In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230,
232 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Involuntary
termination of parental rights is a serious matter implicating fundamental

                                            13
constitutional rights. Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985); In re S.R., 452
S.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Although
parental rights are of constitutional magnitude, they are not absolute. In re A.C., 560
S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tex. 2018).

       Due to the severity and permanency of terminating the parental relationship,
Texas requires clear and convincing evidence to support such an order. See Tex.
Fam. Code § 161.001; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 265-66 (Tex. 2002). “Clear and
convincing evidence” means “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations
sought to be established.” Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 264.
This heightened burden of proof results in a “correspondingly searching standard of
appellate review.” In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 630; see also In re C.M.C., 273 S.W.3d
862, 873 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).

       In reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence in a parental termination case,
we must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine
whether a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that
its finding was true. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2009). We assume that
the fact finder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable fact finder
could do so, and we disregard all evidence that a reasonable fact finder could have
disbelieved. Id.; In re G.M.G., 444 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2014, no pet.). However, this does not mean that we must disregard all evidence that
does not support the finding. In re J.B., No. 14-20-00766-CV, 2021 WL 1683942,
at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 29, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Because of the heightened standard, we also must be mindful of any undisputed
evidence contrary to the finding and consider that evidence in our analysis. Id.

       In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence under the clear-and-

                                            14
convincing standard, we consider and weigh disputed evidence contrary to the
finding against all the evidence favoring the finding. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631;
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345. “If, in light of the entire record, the disputed
evidence that a reasonable fact finder could not have credited in favor of the finding
is so significant that a fact finder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or
conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at
345. We give due deference to the fact finder’s findings, and we cannot substitute
our own judgment for that of the fact finder. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108
(Tex. 2006).

II.    Predicate Grounds of Endangerment

       A.      Applicable law

       Both parents challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s
findings of endangerment. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) & (E). Both
parents also challenge the remaining predicate grounds for termination.

       To affirm a termination judgment on appeal, a court need uphold only one
termination ground—in addition to upholding a challenged best-interest finding—
even if the trial court based the termination on more than one ground. In re N.G.,
577 S.W.3d at 232; In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 832 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Further, due to the significant collateral consequences of
terminating parental rights under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E),2 “[a]llowing
section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) findings to go unreviewed on appeal when the parent

       2
          Section 161.001(b)(1)(M) provides that parental rights may be terminated if clear and
convincing evidence supports a finding that the parent “had his or her parent-child relationship
terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent’s conduct was in
violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(M). Thus, when parental rights have been terminated for
endangerment under either section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E), that ground becomes a basis to
terminate that parent’s rights to other children.

                                                 15
has presented the issue to the court thus violates the parent’s due process and due
course of law rights.” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 237. Thus, when, as here, a parent
challenges predicate termination grounds under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E),
we must address them and detail our analysis. See id.

      A trial court may order termination of a parent-child relationship if the court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that a parent has knowingly placed or
knowingly allowed a child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger
the physical or emotional well-being of the child and/or engaged in conduct or
knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers
the physical or emotional well-being of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code §
161.001(b)(1)(D), (E). Both subsections D and E require proof of endangerment. To
“endanger” means to expose the child to loss or injury or to jeopardize the child’s
emotional or physical health. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531,
533 (Tex. 1987).

      While both subsections D and E focus on endangerment, they differ regarding
the source of the physical or emotional endangerment to the child. See In re B.S.T.,
977 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Endangerment under subsection D may be established by evidence related to the
child’s environment. In re A.S., 261 S.W.3d 76, 83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2008, pet. denied). “Environment” refers to the acceptability of living conditions, as
well as a parent’s conduct in the home. In re J.E.M.M., 532 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). A child is endangered when the
environment creates a potential for danger that the parent is aware of but consciously
disregards. In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 360. Although the parent need not have certain
knowledge that an actual injury is occurring, the parent must at least be aware of the
potential for danger to the child in such an environment and must have disregarded

                                         16
that risk. In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014,
no pet.).

      The fact finder may infer from past conduct endangering the child’s well-
being that similar conduct will recur if the child is returned to the parent. In re
M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); see also In
re F.H., No. 14-18-00209-CV, 2018 WL 3977931, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Aug. 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). Subsection D permits termination if the
petitioner proves parental conduct caused a child to be placed or remain in an
endangering environment. In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 749 (Tex. 2022). Subsection
D permits termination based upon only a single act or omission. In re V.A., 598
S.W.3d 317, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied).

      Under subsection E, the cause of the endangerment must be the direct result
of the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, and failures to act, and the
requirements of the subsection may be satisfied by showing the parent engaged in a
course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. In
re J.D., 436 S.W.3d at 114. The statute requires a voluntary, deliberate, and
conscious course of conduct by the parent. Id. While endangerment often involves
physical endangerment, the statute does not require that conduct be directed at a
child or that the child actually suffers injury; rather, the specific danger to the child’s
well-being may be inferred from parents’ misconduct alone. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at
533; In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d at 834. A parent’s conduct that subjects a child to a life
of uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s physical and emotional well-
being. In re F.E.N., 542 S.W.3d 752, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018,
no pet.).

      B.     Mother: endangerment by environment (161.001(b)(1)(D))

      In Mother’s first issue she asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the

                                            17
trial court’s finding that she knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to
remain in conditions that endangered them because there is no evidence that Mother
had control over placement of the children since the original removal by the
Department resolved in 2015 with the Department’s appointment as sole managing
conservator. In this issue Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the trial court’s finding under subsection D. While Mother is correct that the
Department was appointed sole managing conservator in 2015, the relevant time
frame for evaluating a subsection D ground is before the children’s removal. In re
J.W., 645 S.W.3d at 749.

      The evidence as detailed above, is sufficient for the court to have found
Mother engaged in acts or omissions pursuant to subsection D. The record reflects
that the children were removed from Mother’s care in April 2014 “due to being able
to roam freely while their mother was intoxicated.” The children were living with
their maternal grandmother in a home with no water or gas. The children’s clothes
were dirty and were described as having “a stench to them.” The home had roaches
and rats and the children were digging in garbage cans for food.

      Mother testified that she moved the children into her mother’s home after she
was asked to leave subsidized housing. Mother admitted the grandmother’s home
had no water and electricity and that she had to take the children elsewhere to bathe.
“While poverty should not be a basis for termination of parental rights, a parent’s
inability to provide basic utilities in the family home may constitute evidence of
endangerment of the children’s well-being.” In re H.D.M., No. 09-18-00050-CV,
2018 WL 2974461, at *7 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 14, 2018, pet. denied) (mem.
op.). Mother did not contradict the caseworker’s testimony that the children were
roaming freely due to her intoxication or that they were digging in garbage cans for
food prior to their removal.

                                         18
      Considered in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, the evidence
is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s
parental rights was justified under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D). Further,
in view of the entire record, we conclude the disputed evidence is not so significant
as to prevent the trial court from forming a firm belief or conviction that termination
was warranted under section 161.001(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, we conclude the
evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the subsection D finding.

      Having concluded the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support
the trial court’s finding under subsection D, we need not review the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the subsections E, N, and O findings. See In re A.V., 113
S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). We overrule Mother’s issues on appeal.

      C.     Father: endangerment by conduct (161.001(b)(1)(E))

      In Father’s first and second issues he asserts the evidence is legally and
factually insufficient to support termination of his parental rights on endangerment
grounds. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) & (E). We will address Father’s
second issue first, i.e., whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to
support termination of Father’s parental rights under subsection E.

      A finding of endangerment under subsection E requires evidence that the
endangerment was the result of the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, or
failures to act. In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 360. A trial court properly may consider
actions and inactions occurring both before and after a child’s birth and before and
after removal to establish a course of conduct. Id. at 360–61. A parent’s conduct that
subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the child’s physical
and emotional well-being. In re T.L.E., 579 S.W.3d 616, 624 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied).

                                          19
      “Domestic violence, want of self-control, and propensity for violence may be
considered as evidence of endangerment.” In re P.N.T., 580 S.W.3d 331, 356 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied) (quoting In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d
841, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)). Violence does not have
to be directed toward the child or result in a final conviction. In re V.V., 349 S.W.3d
548, 556 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (“Texas courts
routinely consider evidence of parent-on-parent physical abuse in termination cases
without specifically requiring evidence that the conduct resulted in a criminal
conviction.”).

      The record reflects that the parents’ visitation with their children was
suspended in early 2016 because Mother and Father engaged in an altercation in
front of the children at a supervised visitation. The children could not be placed with
Father because, in late 2018, he was convicted on a plea of guilty to assault of a
family member. The indictment reflected a 2011 conviction for assault of a family
member. Julian testified that he witnessed both parents engaging in domestic
violence almost every weekend. Julian testified that at the time he and his siblings
originally came into the Department’s care the domestic violence between his
parents was worse than it had been while he later lived with Father.

      Father acknowledges “this evidence is certainly problematic” but asserts “it is
important to remember that Julian was a teenager, not a child of tender years who
was unable to take actions to protect himself.” We decline to hold that a child’s
ability to protect himself from domestic violence can mitigate the endangering
nature of such violence. Abusive and violent conduct can produce an environment
that endangers the well-being of a child, and evidence that a person has engaged in
abusive conduct in the past permits an inference that the person will continue such
violent behavior in the future. Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs.,

                                          20
312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

      Father further asserts that while “[t]here is some evidence of domestic
violence taking place prior to [Department] involvement,” Father’s actions “from
the distant past” without more cannot be sufficient to terminate parental rights.
While termination may not be based solely on conditions that existed in the distant
past but no longer exist, the dispositive inquiry is whether the past continues to bear
on the present. In re T.L.E., 579 S.W.3d at 625. The record reflects that the domestic
violence in which Father engaged was not in the distant past and continued to exist.
Julian’s testimony shows that Father continued to engage in domestic violence
almost every weekend. Father was also convicted of domestic violence while this
case was pending.

      Father further asserts that there “is no evidence of any endangering course of
conduct on Father’s part between 2014 and May 2021.” Father contends that during
this time period the children did not live with him so he could not have endangered
them. Father ignores evidence of his altercation with Mother at a supervised
visitation and his conviction for assault of a family member. Father also asserts that
the domestic violence described by Julian did not endanger the three younger
children. A parent’s abuse of a child endangers that child but also endangers other
children the parent may have in his care. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248
(Tex. 2013). When determining if children are at risk for abuse or neglect by their
parent, the parent’s treatment of other children must be considered: “Part of [the risk]
calculus includes the harm suffered or the danger faced by other children under the
parent’s care.” Id. The fact finder may consider evidence of Father’s pattern of
criminal activity, including parent-on-parent physical abuse. See In re V.V., 349
S.W.3d at 556. (“A parent’s criminal history—taking into account the nature of the
crimes, the duration of incarceration, and whether a pattern of escalating, repeated

                                          21
convictions exists—can support a finding of endangerment.”).

       Considered in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, the evidence
is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that termination of
Father’s parental rights was justified under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E).
Further, in view of the entire record, we conclude the disputed evidence is not so
significant as to prevent the trial court from forming a firm belief or conviction that
termination was warranted under section 161.001(b)(1)(E). Accordingly, we
conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the subsection E
finding.

       Having concluded the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support
the trial court’s finding under subsection E, we need not review the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the subsections D and N findings. See In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d
at 362. We overrule Father’s first, second, and fourth issues on appeal.

III.   Predicate Ground of Failure to Support

       In Father’s third issue he challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the
evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he failed to support the children
under subsection F. Although the supreme court does not require this court to address
Father’s remaining issues, the Department concedes in its brief that the evidence is
legally insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Father “failed to support
the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a period of one year ending
within six months of the date of the filing of the petition[.]” Tex. Fam. Code §
161.001(b)(1)(F).

       The trial court may not order termination under subsection F without clear and
convincing evidence of the parent’s ability to support the children during the
statutory period. In re D.M.D., 363 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

                                           22
Dist.] 2012, no pet.). The Department filed its pleading seeking termination of
parental rights on March 26, 2019. The statutory period began no earlier than
September 26, 2017. The party seeking to terminate, in this case the Department, has
the burden to establish that the parent had the ability to support the child during each
month in the 12-month period. In re J.G.S., 574 S.W.3d 101, 117 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). Without evidence of an ability to support the
children during the 12-month statutory period, termination of parental rights cannot
be granted under Subsection F. Id. The Department concedes that the record does
not contain evidence showing Father had the ability to support the children during
the statutory period. Likewise, our independent review of the record reveals no such
evidence. We therefore sustain Father’s third issue.

                                    CONCLUSION

      Having sustained Father’s third issue, we modify the trial court’s final order
to delete the finding pursuant to section 161.001(b)(1)(F). Having overruled
Mother’s issues on appeal and Father’s issues challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the endangerment finding, we affirm the trial court’s final order
as modified.

                                        /s/    Jerry Zimmerer
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.

                                          23