Court Opinion

ID: 9402600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 07:25:15.347427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:01.173934
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________

                               NO. 09-23-00006-CV
                              ________________

                        IN THE INTEREST OF A.W.A.

________________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 21-03-03534-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mother and Father appeal the trial court’s order terminating their parental

rights to their daughter, Anne, on findings of conduct endangerment, condition

endangerment, their failure to comply with their respective family service plans, and

as to Father, that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the best interest of

Anne.1 On appeal, the parents argue the evidence is insufficient to support the trial

      1
       See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D) ,(E), (O), (b)(2). To preserve the
privacy of the parties, we refer to the Appellants as “Mother” and “Father” and the
child by a pseudonym to protect their identities. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
                                          1
court’s predicate findings terminating their parental rights under section

161.001(b)(1). In addition, Father argues the evidence is insufficient to support the

trial court’s finding that terminating his rights would be in Anne’s best interest under

161.001(b)(2) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. §161.001(b)(2).

We affirm.

                                   I. Background

                               A. Procedural History

1. Affidavit of Removal

      Anne was born in October 2020. In March 2021, The Department of Family

and Protective Services (the Department) filed an Original Petition for Protection of

a Child, For Conservatorship, and For Termination in Suit Affecting the Parent-

Child Relationship and Order Setting Hearing. Attached to the petition, the

Department filed an Affidavit in Support of Removal alleging that keeping Anne in

her current home was contrary to her welfare and best interest. In the affidavit, the

Department outlined the events that led to its request for Anne’s removal. Mother

and Anne tested positive for marijuana at Anne’s birth, and Anne was placed in the

NICU for low sugar levels. Mother and Father admitted to smoking marijuana while

Mother was pregnant with Anne. A Family Based Service Plan was opened for the

parents, and Mother and Father continued to test positive for drugs in November and

December 2020. Both Mother and Father completed a substance abuse assessment

                                           2
and were recommended to submit to random drug testing, substance abuse

counseling, and psychological counseling. Within two weeks of this assessment, the

Department received notice that the parents had a “domestic altercation” leading to

Father’s arrest. Anne was removed from her parent’s care and placed with a maternal

aunt. The parents continued to test positive for marijuana in January 2021. That same

month, the maternal aunt took Anne to a wellness appointment and it was discovered

Anne had a fractured forearm. The parents offered various explanations for Anne’s

injures, telling the Department that she fell in her baby carrier when she was a month

and half old and a dog jumped on her at about two months old. Anne was then placed

with her maternal great-grandmother. In February 2021, a Family Team meeting was

held with the parents and maternal great-grandmother where the parents agreed to

engage in services with the Department, agreed to stop using illegal substances,

maintain contact with the Department, obtain employment, and find stable housing.

The Department reported inconsistent contact with the parents during the month of

March, with both parents not showing up for requested drug testing. Father was

arrested during that month for probation violations. The Department requested

Anne’s removal because of Father’s domestic violence, criminal history, and drug

usage.

                                          3
2. Second Affidavit of Removal

      In September 2021, maternal great-grandmother was named managing

conservator of Anne after filing a Petition in Intervention in this suit. In November

2021, the Department filed a Petition to Modify, requesting to modify the September

order to be named temporary managing conservator of Anne. In its Affidavit in

Support of Removal, the Department alleged neglectful supervision of Anne by

Mother and maternal great-grandmother. According to the second affidavit, it

received a referral that Mother was smoking marijuana around Anne, that neither

maternal great-grandmother or Mother had baby formula for Anne and did not have

the ability to get formula, resulting in Anne drinking sugary drinks. Maternal great-

grandmother also had a violent boyfriend and was allowing Mother to live with

Anne. In August 2021, maternal great-grandmother was arrested for possession of

methamphetamines. Anne was removed from maternal great-grandmother’s care.

The Department requested temporary conservatorship because of serious concerns

about Anne’s caregiver’s drug usage, stability of her home placement, noting she

has been moved 7 times, and the parent’s criminal history and drug use.

      In November 2021, the trial court granted the Department temporary sole

managing conservatorship over Anne. Anne was placed in foster care. The trial court

held a bench trial in November 2022.2

      2
          Maternal great-grandmother did not file an intervention in this case.
                                         4
                               B. Evidence at Trial

1. Testimony of Caseworker Amber Evans

      Evans testified that she is the conservatorship caseworker for this case. She

noted that there was a prior Department case with this family, in which maternal

great-grandmother was named permanent managing conservator of Anne.

      Evans stated that she was assigned this case in May 2022, and Mother

contacted her and they agreed to meet in person. Subsequently, Mother did not

contact her again until July, claiming she had phone issues. Evans finally met Mother

in person in August. Evans stated that Mother has completed her domestic violence

assessment, and three sessions of individual and outpatient therapies. Evans never

received documentation that Mother ever completed her parenting course, that she

is employed, or has stable housing. She also confirmed that since she has been the

caseworker, Mother has not had visitation with Anne because Mother cannot pass a

drug test. During the pendency of this case, Mother has continued to test positive for

marijuana. Evans expressed concerns that Mother also continues to maintain contact

with Father because they have a volatile relationship. At the time of trial, Mother

was pregnant again with Father’s child. She testified that since April, she has not

seen any change or behavior from Mother.

      Regarding Father, Evans stated she is concerned with his criminal history and

failure to complete services. According to Evans, Father needs to complete Batterers

                                          5
Intervention Prevention Program classes, including individual and group classes,

and a psychiatric evaluation as recommended from his substance abuse assessment.

She testified that Father regularly visited Anne and his visits were appropriate. Evans

stated that her biggest concern for Father is his failure to complete his services, in

conjunction with his criminal history, and the very young age of this child.

      Evans testified that Anne is currently in a “foster to adopt” placement. She

stated that Anne is bonded with her foster parents and foster sibling, and that the

home is safe and appropriate. She believes that termination of Mother and Father’s

parental rights is in Anne’s best interest.

2. CASA advocate Christy Prozzoly

      Christy Prozzoly has been the CASA advocate for Anne since December

2021. She explained that her role is to advocate for Anne and help facilitate the needs

of Anne. With Father, she stated she provided “[c]oaching, recommendations on

creating resumes, anything that I could do.” During that time, she has met with both

parents and with Anne’s paternal grandparents. She stated that during her meeting

with paternal grandfather, he was “throwing the groceries[,]” leading Prozzoly to

stay after her meeting to check on paternal grandmother, because she was

“concerned for her” safety. She described her experience in meeting the paternal

grandparents, stating it was “relevant[,] because this is the home that [Anne] would

be going to if [Father] was successful” and if he were awarded conservatorship.

                                              6
      When asked about Mother, Prozzoly stated that she first met Mother in

January 2022 at the Department office. She had one other visitation with Mother in

February 2022. She observed the visits between Mother and Anne, and Mother

brought food and toys to Anne during the visit. Prozzoly recalled that Mother had

an “outburst” during that visitation. Prozzoly testified that Mother did not support

Anne during the pendency of the case.

      Prozzoly confirmed that Anne has moved thirteen times in her life and

Prozzoly does not believe those moves were in Anne’s best interest. Prozzoly

believes Anne should stay with her foster family.

3. Father

      Father testified that he was twenty-two years old and this was his first case

with the Department. He admitted to smoking marijuana with Mother when Mother

was pregnant with Anne. He testified that after Anne was removed from the maternal

great-grandmother, she lived with Father and the paternal grandmother for about

“two months” during the pendency of this case. Father testified regarding his

criminal history including, evading arrest, assault family violence, and possession of

a controlled substance. The complaints and judgments were entered as evidence by

the Department. Father testified that he was arrested and convicted for the assault

strangulation of Mother and received eight years deferred adjudication. Father

                                          7
confirmed that he has a new family violence assault charge against Mother pending

since April 2022. Father denied having an ongoing relationship with Mother.

      Father stated since he has been released from jail he has made preparations

for Anne to be returned to him, including living with paternal grandmother, having

a “good…. clean environment[,]” for Anne to live, with her own room, and that he

just got a job. Father asserted that although he does not have any items for Anne, he

plans to get a car seat, bed, toys, clothes, and diapers for her to go in her room. Father

would place Anne in daycare while he worked during the day. He testified that he is

working to complete his drug and alcohol group therapy, parenting classes, and

batterer’s intervention program. He explained that he is learning to control his urges

regarding drugs and alcohol, and he is learning to control his anger. According to

Father, he learned how his substance abuse and behaviors negatively affect his child.

Father admitted that he made “bad decisions[]” including smoking marijuana and

“family violence issues.” But he denied smoking marijuana in front of Anne before

she was removed from his care, stating he would go in the backyard when he smoked

marijuana. Father also stated that since he has been released from jail, he has visited

with Anne for an hour “[e]very other week,” but missed his last visitation because

another person was not available to observe.

                                            8
4. Mother

      Mother testified she wants the court to grant her or Father managing

conservatorship of their daughter. Mother confirmed that Anne received an injury

before she was removed from her care but stated she did not know how her daughter

received the injury to her arm. Mother testified she did not contact the Department

until April after Father went to jail. She stated she did not go to the Department’s

office until that date because she did not have a “ride[.]” She explained that she has

not had visitation with Anne in almost a year because she cannot pass a drug test.

Mother also denied losing her temper and screaming at her lawyer in front of Anne

on an occasion when she did have a visitation.

      Mother testified that she started smoking marijuana every day starting when

she was sixteen years old. Mother detailed her criminal history, explaining that she

was first arrested for possession of marijuana when she was eighteen years old. In

total, Mother testified she has been arrested three times with the most recent arrest

in 2022. Mother stated that she is not currently using marijuana, but “[i]t’s just still

in my system, and my levels will tell that.” Mother testified that she last used

marijuana at the end of May, but at her November trial, admitted she could not pass

a drug test, because she is still using a substance that is a “form of THC.” Mother

also confirmed that she is currently pregnant and failed drug tests during her current

pregnancy. Mother denied any knowledge that maternal great-grandmother was

                                           9
using methamphetamines when Anne was in her custody. Mother testified that she

has not completed any part of her family service plan, but she says she is “in the

works of completing them.”

      Mother stated she is currently living in her mother’s home that includes

several other family members. Mother is not currently employed, but plans to get a

job to support Anne, in addition to receiving support from her family. Mother stated

Anne would sleep in Mother’s room in a queen size bed and that Mother made

preparations for Anne, including obtaining clothes and toys. Mother planned to start

potty training Anne. Mother stated that her sister lives in the home and would watch

Anne during the day while Mother worked.

      Mother testified that she and Father dated for two and half years. When asked

about Father’s domestic violence, she stated that he has been violent with her “more

than ten” times, with the most recent assault happening in April. She described in

detail Father’s domestic assaults, stating he went to jail for domestic violence assault

against her. Mother testified she never called the police on Father, but a neighbor or

Father’s family called the police. Mother agreed that Anne was in the home during

an assault. Mother stated Father would “never put his hands on my daughter[,]” and

Mother was comfortable with Father having overnight visitation with Anne. Mother

expressed confidence that Father is taking medication to control his anger issues

since he has been released from jail. Mother denied having an ongoing relationship

                                          10
with Father, stating they only communicate about this case. That said, Mother also

agreed that she is currently pregnant with Father’s child.

5. Foster Mother

      Foster Mother testified that she has had Anne in her home for almost a year.

Her family would like to adopt Anne if Mother and Father’s rights are terminated.

Foster Mother stated that Anne is developing on target and has no health issues other

than springtime allergies. She testified that she has been married for 12 years, owns

her own home, her husband has never been violent with her, and neither she nor her

husband have been arrested or incarcerated. Her household includes herself, her

husband, and her six-year-old daughter. Both she and her husband work full time

and Anne attends daycare during the day. She testified that Anne has her own room,

with a toddler bed, dresser, changing table, and rocking chair that she still uses to

rock Anne to sleep.

      According to Foster Mother, Anne was very timid when she arrived at her

home, and it took several weeks before she could put her on the ground or in a chair

because she always wanted to be held, with Anne screaming each time she put her

down. Foster Mother stated that she works with Anne, reading, helping her to

identify animals and teaching her to “form words.” Foster Mother described the

difficulties surrounding the uncertainty of Anne’s future, stating that Anne is an

                                         11
“absolute pleasure to have and she gets along with everyone in our house.” Foster

Mother confirmed that she has not observed the parents’ interactions with Anne.

      At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court granted the Department’s petition

and terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, finding predicate statutory

requirements and that termination was in the best interest of Anne. Mother and

Father timely appealed.

                              II. Standard of Review

      The decision to terminate parental rights must be supported by clear and

convincing evidence. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b). Under the Family Code,

“‘[c]lear and convincing evidence’ means the measure or degree of proof that will

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

the allegations sought to be established.” Id. § 101.007; In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79,

84 (Tex. 2005). The movant must show that the parent committed one or more

predicate acts or omissions and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d at 84.

      In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a parental rights

termination case, we must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

finding to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief

or conviction that the finding was true. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex.

2009) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). We assume the

                                          12
factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder

could do so, and we disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have

disbelieved. Id. In a factual sufficiency review, we “give due consideration to

evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and

convincing.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. We must determine “‘whether the

evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction

about the truth of the State’s allegations.’” Id. (quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25

(Tex. 2002)). “If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable

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

factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the

evidence is factually insufficient.” Id. In cases tried to the bench, the trial court in its

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

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

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

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

                                      III. Analysis

                            A. Statutory Grounds D and E

       Mother and Father challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support

termination of their parental rights under sections 161.001(b)(1), (D) and (E) of the

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

                                            13
Additionally, Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of

termination under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code. Id.

      We are required to consider the sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to

Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) if challenged. In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235-36

(Tex. 2019). If the evidence is sufficient as to one of these, it will not be necessary

to address the other predicate grounds because sufficient evidence as to only one

ground in addition to the best interest finding is all that is necessary to affirm a

termination judgment. Id. at 232-33. Because the evidence supporting statutory

grounds D and E may be interrelated, we may consolidate our review of the evidence

supporting these grounds. See In re J.L.V., No. 09-19-00316-CV, 2020 WL

1161098, at *10 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 11, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Endangerment arises when a parent’s conduct jeopardizes the child’s emotional or

physical health. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

      Under subsection D, parental rights may be terminated if clear and convincing

evidence supports a finding that the parent “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed

the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or

emotional well-being of the child[.]” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D).

Subsection E allows for termination of parental rights if clear and convincing

evidence supports that the parent “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child

                                          14
with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional

well-being of the child[.]” Id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E).

      Under subsection D, parental rights may be terminated based on a single act

or omission by the parent. In re L.E.S., 471 S.W.3d 915, 925 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2015, no pet.) (citing In re A.B., 125 S.W.3d 769, 776 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003,

pet. denied)). Termination under subsection E requires more than a single act or

omission and a “‘voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the

parent is required.’” Id. at 923 (quoting Perez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective &

Regulatory Servs., 148 S.W.3d 427, 436 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). As for

subsection D, we examine the time before the child’s removal to determine whether

the environment of the home posed a danger to the child’s physical or emotional

well-being. Id. at 925 (citing In re L.C., 145 S.W.3d 790, 795 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2004, no pet.)). “A finding of endangerment under subsection E,

however, may be based on conduct both before and after removal.” In re A.L.H., 515

S.W.3d 60, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (citing In re

S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 360). “‘[E]ndanger’ means to expose to loss or injury[.]’” In re

N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d 358, 367 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (quoting Tex.

Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987)). Under subsection

E, it is sufficient that the child’s well-being is jeopardized or exposed to loss or

injury. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533; N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d at 367. “‘A child is endangered

                                         15
when the environment creates a potential for danger that the parent is aware of, but

disregards.’” In re L.E.S., 471 S.W.3d at 925 (quoting In re N.B., No. 06-12-00007-

CV, 2012 WL 1605457, at *9 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 8, 2012, no pet.) (mem.

op.)). Generally, subjecting a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers

the child’s physical and emotional well-being. See In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 739

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).

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

endangering a child even if there is no evidence that such drug use caused a physical

or actual injury to the child. Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,

190 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). A history

of illegal drug use is conduct that subjects a child to a life that is uncertain and

unstable, endangering the child’s physical and emotional well-being. In re S.D., 980

S.W.2d 758, 763 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied); Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t

of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no

writ). A parent’s drug use, criminal history, and employment and housing instability

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

could determine the parent endangered the child’s emotional and physical well-

being. See In re M.C., No. 09-18-00436-CV, 2019 WL 1561824, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Apr. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at

361-62 (parent’s drug use may qualify as a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious

                                          16
course of conduct endangering the child’s well-being); Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of

Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2009, pet. denied) (illegal drug use may support termination under subsection E

because “it exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or

imprisoned[ ]”). A parent’s continued drug use when the custody of her child is in

jeopardy supports a finding of endangerment. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 361-62

(citing Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d

244, 253-54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.)). Further, a factfinder

can reasonably infer that a parent’s failure to submit to court-ordered drug tests

indicates the parent was avoiding testing because she was using illegal drugs. In re

E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d 251, 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

“Domestic violence and a propensity for violence may be considered evidence of

endangerment, even if the endangering acts did not occur in the child’s presence,

were not directed at the child, or did not cause actual injury to the child.” In re

K.A.R., No. 04-17-00723-CV, 2018 WL 1733147, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Apr. 11, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533. Abusive or

violent conduct by a parent can produce an environment endangering the child’s

physical or emotional well-being. In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d 215, 222 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).

                                        17
1. Mother

      The jury heard evidence that Mother admitted to past and present drug usage,

including marijuana use as recent as the spring of 2022. Repeated requests were

made for Mother to submit to drug testing and Mother has not been able to provide

two clean drug tests so she could resume visitation with her daughter. The trial court

heard Mother’s testimony that she used marijuana while in a relationship with Father

and during her pregnancy with Anne. Evidence also demonstrated that she continued

to use a “THC” substance while pregnant with her second child. Mother also

admitted that she was arrested several times for possession of a controlled substance,

with the most recent arrest a few months before trial. Finally, Mother admitted to

drug use after her child was removed and admitted that she had failed to complete

recommended substance abuse counseling. Additionally, while in Mother’s care,

Anne suffered an injury that Mother could not explain.

      The trial court heard from the first caseworker that Mother failed to contact

the Department for several months after her child was removed from maternal great-

grandmother’s care. Mother admitted that she is not working, and while she may

have had stable housing, she was relying on others for money. The factfinder heard

evidence that Father was physically abusive to Mother throughout their relationship.

Mother continued her relationship with Father and she is currently pregnant with

another child conceived with Father. Mother admitted she did not call the police, or

                                         18
otherwise report Father’s abuse, and she also did not leave Father until he was

incarcerated.

2. Father

      The factfinder heard evidence regarding Father’s drug use, including smoking

marijuana with Mother during her pregnancy with Anne. Father testified that he

planned to live with his mother and stepfather. CASA expressed reservations and

concerns about the stepfather. Father admitted his stepfather was verbally abusive to

him as a child. The trial court also heard evidence that Father had a propensity for

violent conduct and had been arrested several times for assaults against Mother. The

evidence also established that Anne suffered an injury while in Mother and Father’s

care--an injury that was discovered only after maternal aunt took Anne to the doctor.

      Deferring to the factfinder’s credibility determinations and reviewing all the

evidence in the light most favorable to the termination findings under subsections D

and E, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that

Mother and Father, through their individual acts or omissions or a course of conduct,

endangered their child’s physical or emotional well-being. We conclude that the

Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father

committed the predicate acts enumerated in subsections D and E. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E). Further, considering the entire record, we

conclude the disputed evidence the trial court could not reasonably have credited in

                                         19
favor of its endangerment findings is not so significant that the court could not

reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother and Father

endangered their child. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. Therefore, we need not

address the sufficiency of the evidence to support a violation of subsections O

regarding Father. See In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379, 388 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011,

no pet.). We overrule Mother’s and Father’s first and second issues.

                            B. Best Interest of the Child

      While Mother did not challenge the best interest finding, Father challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that terminating

his parental rights is in Anne’s best interest.

      In a suit filed by the Department to terminate the parent-child relationship, the

Department must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that terminating the

parent-child relationship is in the child's best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

101.007. As defined by the Family Code, 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. Id.

      Trial courts have wide latitude in determining a child’s best interest. See

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). There is a strong

presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the child with his

parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528,

                                           20
533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 153.131(b). Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is

also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(a).

      The Family Code outlines nonexclusive factors to be considered in

determining whether a parent is willing and able to provide a safe environment for a

child including: the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; whether

there is a history of abusive or assaultive conduct by the child’s family or others who

have access to the child’s home; the willingness and ability of the child’s family to

seek out, accept, and complete counseling services and to cooperate with and

facilitate an appropriate agency’s close supervision; the willingness and ability of

the child’s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes within a

reasonable period of time; whether the child’s family demonstrates adequate

parenting skills, including providing the child with minimally adequate health and

nutritional care, a safe physical home environment, and an understanding of the

child’s needs and capabilities; and whether an adequate social support system

consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the child. Id. §

263.307(b); see also In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116. The Texas Supreme Court has

articulated several additional factors that may be considered when determining

whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child, including:

1) the desires of the child, 2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and

                                          21
in the future, 3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future,

4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, 5) the programs available

to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child, 6) the plans for

the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody, 7) the stability of

the home or proposed placement, 8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may

indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one, and 9) any

excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367,

371-72 (Tex. 1976) (setting forth the “Holley factors” and noting “[t]his listing is by

no means exhaustive[ ]”). No specific Holley factor is controlling, and evidence of

one factor may be enough to support a finding that termination is in the child’s best

interest. See M.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 305, 311

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. denied) (“Undisputed evidence of just one factor

may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in the best interest of a

child.”) (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27); In re A.P., 184 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Because stability and permanence are important in a

child’s emotional and physical development, termination of parental interests may

be in the child’s best interest when a parent is unable to provide a stable environment

or a reliable source for food, clothing, shelter, and emotional support. See In re J.D.,

436 S.W.3d 105, 119-20 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (citing In

                                          22
re T.D.C., 91 S.W.3d 865, 873 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied)); In re

T.G.R.-M., 404 S.W.3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

      A parent’s past conduct is relevant to determining the parent’s present and

future ability to care for a child. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (parent’s past

performance as parent is relevant to determination of present and future ability to

provide for child); In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013,

pet. denied) (factfinder may measure a parent’s future conduct by past conduct);

Schaban-Maurer v. Maurer-Schaban, 238 S.W.3d 815, 824 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2007, no pet.). The best-interest determination may rely on direct or circumstantial

evidence, subjective factors, and the totality of the evidence. In re N.R.T., 338

S.W.3d 667, 677 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.). If, in light of the entire

record, no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that

termination was in the child’s best interest, then we must conclude that the evidence

is legally insufficient to support termination. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

      Father had been arrested and incarcerated several times for domestic abuse

against Mother, including seven months before trial. He admitted to smoking

marijuana with Mother during her pregnancy with Anne. Father testified that he was

arrested and convicted for the assault strangulation of Mother and received eight

years deferred adjudication. Father confirmed that he has a new family violence

assault charge against Mother pending since April 2022. A history of criminal

                                         23
activity is a factor the trial court can consider in determining the parental abilities of

a parent who may be sent to jail or prison and unavailable to care for the child.

The Holley Factors

      1) The Child’s Desires

      Because of the lack of evidence as to Anne’s desires in this record, the first

Holley Factor is given neutral weight.

      2) Emotional and Physical Needs of the Child Now and in the Future

      Father has a serious criminal history involving family violence. This court

recently considered similar criminal history in In re J.O., No. 09-21-00341-CV,

2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1769, at *31 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Mar. 17, 2022, pet.

denied) (mem. op.). Citing In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, we agreed with the Fort

Worth Court of Appeals that “As a general rule, conduct that subjects a child to a

life of uncertainty and instability endangers the physical and emotional well-being

of a child.” Id at 739. Since Father’s deferred adjudicated probation could be revoked

any time during the next eight years, it constitutes evidence upon which the court

can base its decision that Father cannot provide a stable home environment for Anne.

It is evidence the trial court can consider to determine that Father is unable to meet

the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future. Father’s past

performance engaging in conduct endangering Anne, as we have previously found,

are relevant to the determination of present and future ability to provide for the child.

                                           24
See In re B.P., No. 09-21-00038-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5000 at *10 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont June 24, 2021, no pet.) (explaining the factfinder may infer from

a parent’s past conduct endangering the child that similar conduct will recur if the

child were to be returned to the parent). Under the second Holley factor, this

evidence supports the findings of the Court.

      3) Emotional and Physical Danger to the Child Now and in the Future

      Father has been arrested and incarcerated several times for domestic abuse

against Mother, including seven months before trial. He admitted to smoking

marijuana with Mother during her pregnancy with Anne. This evidence can be relied

upon by the trial court to find that Father’s past behaviors predict that Father may

place Anne in physical or emotional danger in the future. See id. at *5.

      4) The Parental Abilities of the Individuals Seeking Custody

      Anne lived with Father for a short period of time before she was placed in

foster care. Although ordered to Batterers Intervention Prevention Program and a

psychiatric evaluation, Father failed to complete these requirements. Father’s

significant criminal history and failure to complete services are evidence upon which

the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of

Father’s parental rights is in Anne’ best interest.

                                          25
      5) The Programs Available to Assist the Father

   Programs were made available to the Father for batterer’s intervention and

substance abuse in which Father failed or refused to participate. This fact weighs in

favor of termination of Father’s rights.

      6) The Father’s Plans for the Child

      Father is taking medication to control his anger issues since he has been

released from jail. Mother denied having an ongoing relationship with Father but

agreed that she is currently pregnant with Father’s child. This indicates there is likely

to be future interactions between the two which could lead to violence as it has in

the past. Father stated he does not have any items for Anne in his current home. He

plans to get a car seat, bed, toys, clothes, and diapers for her to go in her room if

given custody—he does not have those things now. The trial court could have

considered these circumstances that Father has not made adequate plans to ensure

the physical and emotional well-being of Anne. This evidence weighs against Father

on the best interest of the child.

      7) The Stability of the Home or Proposed Placement

      The contingent nature of the planned living situation expressed by Father,

together with the possibility that his probation could be revoked and he could be sent

to prison, weigh against the stability of his proposed placement. The trial court could

                                           26
have formed a firm belief or conviction that, based upon these circumstances,

termination of Father’s parental rights is in Anne’s best interest.

       8) The Acts or Omissions of the Parent

       The fact that Father smoked marijuana “outside” while Anne was living in his

household and assaulted Anne’s Mother, resulting in being placed on criminal

probation, weigh against the Father in this case. The trial court could have formed a

firm belief or conviction that Father’s illegal actions around the child are not in the

best interest of the child.

       9) Any Excuse for the Acts or Omissions of the Parent

       Father has not provided any legitimate excuses for dangerous acts and

omissions admitted in this case. Based upon all the circumstances presented by the

evidence, the trial court could properly form a firm belief or conviction that placing

Anne with Father would not be in Anne’s best interest.

       Finally, testimony demonstrated that Anne is happy in her foster home, she is

considered to be a part of the foster parent’s family, and her foster parents are

meeting all her needs. The foster family wants to adopt Anne if Mother’s and

Father’s parental rights are terminated. Father’s serious criminal history, failure to

complete batterer’s intervention programs, substance abuse programs, and

psychiatric evaluations, are sufficient for the trial court to have formed a firm belief

or conviction that termination of Father’s parental rights are in Anne’s best interest.

                                          27
       Having considered the evidence related to best interest and deferring to the

trial court’s determinations on witness credibility, the resolution of conflicts in the

evidence, and the weight to be given the testimony, we conclude that the statutory

and Holley factors weigh in favor of the trial court’s finding that termination is in

the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(2), 263.307(a); In

re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266; Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72. We conclude that the

evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding

that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, and we

overrule his last issue.

                                   IV. Conclusion

       Having overruled Mother’s and Father’s issues, we affirm the judgment of

the trial court.

       AFFIRMED.

                                               ________________________________
                                                         JAY WRIGHT
                                                             Justice

Submitted on April 19, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 15, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                          28