Court Opinion

ID: 9391399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 11:09:21.924975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.756888
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-22-00777-CV

                                         D. R., Appellant

                                                  v.

                Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

              FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
  NO. D-1-FM-20-006808, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Following a jury trial, the district court terminated the parental rights of appellant

D.R. (Mother) to her daughter, two-year-old J.P.D.H. (Daughter). 1 In a single issue on appeal,

Mother asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the district court’s

finding that termination of her parental rights was in Daughter’s best interest. We will affirm the

termination decree.

                                         BACKGROUND

               The case began in November 2020, when the Texas Department of Family and

Protective Services (the Department) received a report alleging that Mother had contacted law

enforcement in response to Mother’s boyfriend, J.H. (Boyfriend), “terroriz[ing] the family” and

       1
           For the child’s privacy, we refer to her, her mother, and others by their initials and by
their relationships to each other, and we refer to the child’s approximate age at the time of trial.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
“threaten[ing] to murder the family” at the home of Mother’s mother (Grandmother). 2 While the

investigation into that incident was ongoing, the Department received another report that on

December 4, 2020, Mother drove to Boyfriend’s home to drop off Daughter for the night when

she discovered that Boyfriend “had his girlfriend in [his] vehicle.” Mother became “upset and

rammed [Boyfriend’s] car with her vehicle while Daughter was inside her vehicle” and then fled

the scene.

              Following its investigation into these and other reports of domestic violence

between Mother and Boyfriend, the Department sought and obtained temporary managing

conservatorship of Daughter and filed its petition seeking termination of Mother’s parental

rights. 3 The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2022. Witnesses who testified included

Mother; Laura Pender, the Department conservatorship worker assigned to the case; B.W.,

Mother’s cousin and Daughter’s foster mother at the time of trial (Foster Mother); Deborah

Smith, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer assigned to the case; Meredith

Wesley, the CASA supervisor assigned to the case; Krystal Humphrey, a licensed professional

counselor who provided counseling services to Mother during the case; and two police officers,

one who responded to an assault by Mother against Boyfriend in January 2020, and the other

who responded to an assault by Boyfriend against Mother in February 2020.

              At the conclusion of trial, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that

Mother had: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Daughter to remain in conditions and

       2
          These allegations are contained within the Department’s removal affidavit, a copy of
which was not admitted into evidence but has been included in the clerk’s record. We refer to it
only to the extent necessary to understand the background of this case.
       3
          When the case began, Boyfriend was the alleged father of Daughter, and the
Department also sought to terminate his parental rights to Daughter. However, DNA testing later
established that Boyfriend was not the father.
                                               2
surroundings which endangered her physical and emotional well-being; (2) engaged in conduct

or knowingly placed Daughter with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered her

physical and emotional well-being; and (3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order

that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of Daughter. See

Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). The jury also found by clear and convincing

evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Daughter’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(2). The district court rendered judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and later

signed its decree terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother filed a motion for new trial that

was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed.

                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW

               “Proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship implicate rights of

constitutional magnitude that qualify for heightened judicial protection.” In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d

624, 626 (Tex. 2018). Parental rights have been characterized as “essential,” “a basic civil right

of man,” and “far more precious than property rights.” Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.

1985) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)). They are “perhaps the oldest of the

fundamental liberty interests” protected by the United States Constitution. Troxel v. Granville,

530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); E.E. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 598 S.W.3d 389, 396

(Tex. App.—Austin 2020, no pet.). “When the State initiates a parental rights termination

proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it.”

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982). “Consequently, termination proceedings should

be strictly scrutinized, and involuntary termination statutes are strictly construed in favor of the

parent.” Holick, 685 S.W.2d at 20. “Because termination of parental rights ‘is complete, final,

                                                 3
irrevocable and divests for all time’ the natural and legal rights between parent and child,” a trial

court “cannot involuntarily sever that relationship absent evidence sufficient to ‘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.’” A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 630 (quoting Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007; Holick, 685 S.W.2d

at 20). “This heightened proof standard carries the weight and gravity due process requires to

protect the fundamental rights at stake.” Id.

               “A correspondingly searching standard of appellate review is an essential

procedural adjunct.” Id. “The distinction between legal and factual sufficiency lies in the extent

to which disputed evidence contrary to a finding may be considered.” Id. “Evidence is legally

sufficient if, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the fact-finding and

considering undisputed contrary evidence, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or

conviction that the finding was true.” Id. at 631. “Factual sufficiency, in comparison, requires

weighing disputed evidence contrary to the finding against all the evidence favoring the finding.”

Id. “In a factual-sufficiency review, the appellate court must consider whether disputed evidence

is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved it in favor of the finding.” Id.

“Evidence is factually insufficient if, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence a

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

factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true.” Id.

               However, “an appellate court’s review must not be so rigorous that the only fact-

findings that could withstand review are those established beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re

C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 26 (Tex. 2002). “While parental rights are of constitutional magnitude, they

are not absolute.”    Id.   “Just as it is imperative for courts to recognize the constitutional

                                                 4
underpinnings of the parent-child relationship, it is also essential that emotional and physical

interests of the child not be sacrificed merely to preserve that right.” Id.

                                           DISCUSSION

Applicable law

               “Section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code requires two findings to support

termination of a parent’s legal rights: (1) the parent’s acts or omissions must satisfy an

enumerated statutory ground for termination; and (2) termination must be in the child’s best

interest.” In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 312 (Tex. 2021); see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232

(Tex. 2019) (per curiam); A.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 577 S.W.3d 689, 697

(Tex. App.—Austin 2019, pet. denied). In this case, Mother challenges only the best-interest

determination, and thus we limit our review to that finding. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

               We review a factfinder’s best-interest finding in light of the non-exhaustive list of

considerations set out in Holley v. Adams, which include the child’s wishes, the child’s

emotional and physical needs now and in the future, emotional or physical danger to the child

now and in the future, the parenting abilities of the parties seeking custody, programs available

to help those parties, plans for the child by the parties seeking custody, the stability of the

proposed placement, the parent’s acts or omissions indicating that the parent-child relationship is

improper, and any excuses for the parent’s conduct. 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976); see

A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631; In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 807 (Tex. 2012); C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.

The Holley factors are not exhaustive, not all factors must be proved, and a lack of evidence

about some of the factors does not “preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong

conviction or belief that termination is in the child’s best interest, particularly if the evidence

                                                  5
[was] undisputed that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the child.”           C.H.,

89 S.W.3d at 27. “We must consider ‘the totality of the circumstances in light of the Holley

factors’ to determine whether sufficient evidence supports” the best-interest finding. In re

J.M.G., 608 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied) (quoting In re B.F.,

No. 02-07-00334-CV, 2008 WL 902790, at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.)

(mem. op.)).

Evidence presented

               The Department presented evidence of two incidents of domestic violence

between Mother and Boyfriend that occurred before the case began. The first incident occurred

in January 2020. Officer Ashley Fuller of the Austin Police Department (APD) testified that she

was dispatched to a hotel following a call by a pizza-delivery driver, who stated “that she had

made a delivery to this hotel room in which a female inside tried to attack her, and that female

was also trying to attack and did assault a male in the room.” The female was later identified as

Mother and the male as Boyfriend. When Fuller arrived at the hotel, she was greeted by

Boyfriend, who was then alone in the room. Boyfriend “didn’t really want to cooperate too

much,” “didn’t want [Mother] to get in any trouble,” and “didn’t want to allow me to photograph

any of his injuries or complete any paperwork,” but Boyfriend did explain to Fuller what had

happened. Fuller testified that Boyfriend told her that “he was ordering pizza for them and that

during this time, they started arguing about how money was spent for the other children” and that

“[Mother] just became irate [and] very upset, in his words, that she lost it and just started hitting

him all over.” Fuller observed “several scratch marks to his left arm, his bicep area,” “a scratch

on his face by his lip,” and “little puncture wounds on his rib cage and on his back that he said

                                                 6
were from a wine bottle corkscrew opener.” Fuller testified that Boyfriend identified Mother as

his girlfriend and that the offense report characterized the incident as an “assault with injury,

family violence.”

               The second incident occurred in February 2020. APD Officer Eric Pastor testified

that he responded to a call that “started out as a disturbance and turned into what [officers] called

a gun hotshot,” which is “when a gun is seen or being used in the disturbance.” When Pastor

arrived at the scene, there were “three subjects, two females, one male, outside of a vehicle.”

The male subject, identified as Boyfriend, had been reported as having a gun, so Pastor frisked

him for weapons and determined that he did not have any weapons on him. Pastor later learned

that the 911 caller had reported that a gun was involved in the disturbance because Boyfriend

was “known to carry a firearm, but none were actually seen that day.”

               One of the two female subjects was identified as Mother, and Pastor “observed

several abrasions to her face.” Mother explained to Pastor that she had been involved in a

“verbal altercation” with Boyfriend while they were driving in their vehicle. The argument

involved Boyfriend’s relationships with other women, and the altercation eventually “turned

physical,” with Boyfriend striking Mother several times. Boyfriend also “attempted to get her in

a headlock, was unsuccessful, then grabbed her hair and tried to yank her across the center

console from the passenger seat towards the driver seat,” before the other female subject, who

was in the vehicle with them, intervened and “was able to step in,” “break the two apart,” and

call 911. During their interviews with the police following the incident, Boyfriend and Mother

described themselves as “common law spouses as well as parents of the same child,” and Mother

reported that they had been together for approximately one year. Based on the information

                                                 7
obtained during the interviews with the subjects, the police arrested Boyfriend for “assault with

injury, family violence, and interference with [an] emergency phone call.”

               Pastor further testified that after Boyfriend was transported to jail, Mother

“brought up a prior incident that occurred.” Specifically, “several days after [Daughter] was

born,” Boyfriend “allegedly pulled a firearm on [Mother], loaded a round into the chamber and

pointed the gun directly into [Mother’s] chest area.” Mother told Pastor that Daughter was

present during this incident. Pastor explained that this “was a late report so there was nothing

that we could file that day, but another incident report was completed and sent off to the

detectives.”   Pastor also filed an emergency protective order against Boyfriend on

Mother’s behalf.

               Boyfriend was in jail until October 2020, and following his release, he visited

Daughter on Halloween at Grandmother’s house, where he allegedly threatened Grandmother.

This case began after that incident. Department caseworker Laura Pender, who was assigned to

the case in December 2020, testified that the Department had received a referral regarding

domestic violence between Mother and Boyfriend, who the Department believed to be

Daughter’s father at the time. Pender noted that Mother had “a previous CPS case about six to

eight months before that time,” 4 and the Department had observed “a pattern of [Mother]

continuing to be with [Boyfriend] and [Daughter] being around.”

               Pender explained that in January 2021, she created “a family strength and needs

assessment [FSNA] for the parents . . . based on the current allegations of the domestic violence

and history that we were aware of,” and then created another FSNA in February 2021 after

       4
         The previous CPS case, discussed in the removal affidavit, was related to the February
2020 assault of Mother by Boyfriend.
                                               8
receiving more information from Mother. Based on that assessment, Pender created a family

service plan for Mother, which included requirements that Mother actively participate in and

successfully complete a nurturing-parent program, complete a psychological evaluation, submit

to   random   drug     testing,   and   participate   in   and   complete   domestic-violence   and

protective-parenting classes.

               Pender testified that when she first met with Mother to discuss her services, which

were primarily focused on addressing domestic violence, Mother “stated that she and

[Boyfriend] were working on their relationship and denied that he had pointed a gun at her, but

did say that in February of 2020, that he had hit her on her face and that she had defended

herself.” Pender informed Mother about SAFE Alliance, an organization that “could possibly

help with housing for her.” Pender explained that she had referred Mother to SAFE Alliance

because the Department “wanted to make sure that she had a safe place to be while she was

working her services,” as the Department’s main concern was domestic violence between

Mother and Boyfriend. At that time, Mother did not appear to believe that domestic violence

was an issue in her relationship with Boyfriend. Pender recounted that at the initial permanency

hearing, at which both Mother and Boyfriend had appeared remotely, Mother and Boyfriend

“stated that they wanted their visits together, that they were a couple and both continued to deny

domestic violence.”

               Pender recounted that Mother’s visits with Daughter during the case were

inconsistent: “She would have periods of time where she would go often, you know, consistently

every week, and then sometimes she would go weeks at a time without visiting.” Pender also

testified that Mother’s visits were always supervised and that she never progressed to

unsupervised visits.

                                                  9
               When the case began, Mother and Boyfriend had visited Daughter together.

Then, in June 2021, Mother told Pender that “she was no longer in a relationship with

[Boyfriend] and she wanted her visits separated and that she wanted him to do paternity testing.”

Boyfriend agreed to take a DNA test and was determined not to be the father of Daughter. The

Department then asked another man who Mother had identified as the possible father to take a

paternity test, and he too was found not to be the father. Pender testified that at the time of trial,

Daughter’s father had not been identified.

                Regarding Mother’s communication with the Department, Pender testified that

“[s]ometimes [Mother] was very consistent with staying in contact and then sometimes she was

not.” Pender added, “She’s probably changed her number six to seven times, so it would just

depend when she would reach out to me with a new number or—or how she would stay

in contact.”

               Pender testified that she had visited Grandmother’s home, which was where

Mother claimed to live during the case, and Pender had “no concerns” regarding the safety of

that home. However, Pender was not sure whether Mother still lived there, as Grandmother had

told her in February 2022 that Mother “did not live there.”             Pender also explained that

Grandmother had “significant CPS history” and an “extensive criminal history,” so she had not

been approved as a placement for Daughter.

               Pender testified that Mother had completed domestic-violence classes and

protective-parenting classes but not other services, including the nurturing-parenting course, the

psychological evaluation, and submitting to random drug tests. Pender was concerned that

Mother “hasn’t demonstrated that she understands how domestic violence can affect her child”

because she continues to associate with Boyfriend. Pender explained,

                                                 10
       In January of 2022, when I spoke to [Boyfriend], he stated that [Mother] had
       come over with [Daughter] and then it’s just been reported to the Department that
       recently, within the last month, [Mother] and [Boyfriend] have arrived at [Foster
       Mother’s] apartment together to visit [Daughter]. And so it appears that she’s still
       either friends or in a relationship or in contact, at least, with [Boyfriend], who has
       tried to kill her, which is not safe.

               Pender further testified as to Daughter’s placements during the case. Pender

recounted that Daughter was first placed with Boyfriend’s mother, who “asked us to remove the

child from her care, stating it was too stressful to be involved with CPS and she did not wish to

do it any longer.” Daughter was then placed briefly in a non-relative foster home and then with

Foster Mother, who was Daughter’s placement at the time of trial.

               Pender had observed interactions between Daughter and Foster Mother and

described their relationship as “bonded.” Daughter “looks to [Foster Mother] for comfort and

care, for guidance . . . for approval . . . and goes to her if she needs water or a drink or food.”

Pender testified that the Department’s plan was for Foster Mother to adopt Daughter.

               The Department did have one concern with Foster Mother during the case.

Pender recounted an incident of domestic violence between Foster Mother and her partner at

Foster Mother’s home in January 2022. Mother was visiting Daughter there at the time. When

the police arrived to investigate the incident, Foster Mother’s partner claimed that Foster Mother

was the aggressor, and the police arrested her. Before she was transported to jail, Foster Mother

asked Mother to take care of Daughter, and Mother took her. This occurred on a Friday night,

and when on-call workers for the Department learned what had happened, they attempted to

locate Mother and Daughter over the weekend but were unable to do so.

               Then, on Monday morning, Pender was notified about what had happened and

contacted Mother, who “refused to allow [Pender] to see [Daughter].” Pender “submitted a

                                                11
missing person report with APD, called the National Missing Children Hotline, and was very

close to having to issue an Amber Alert.” However, around 10:00 p.m. that night, Pender

received a text message from Foster Mother “stating that [Mother] had picked her up from jail

and [Daughter] was safe and with her. So [Pender] was able to see [Daughter] the next day with

[Foster Mother].”

               Pender testified that following this incident, the Department implemented a safety

plan with Foster Mother. The requirements of this plan, a copy of which was admitted into

evidence, were that Daughter “not be alone in anyone’s care except [Foster Mother] and daycare

personnel,” that Foster Mother “will not engage in any criminal activity,” that “[i]f an emergency

occurs and [Foster Mother] requires a safe person to care for [Daughter] in her absence,

[Department designated person] is authorized,” that Daughter “must attend daycare Monday-

Friday,” that “if [Daughter] will miss daycare, [Foster Mother] must provide the Department

with a doctor’s note,” that Foster Mother “will complete the process she has started to file a

Protective Order against [former partner],” and that “[a]ny partner that [Foster Mother] has in the

future must complete a background check.” When asked why the Department was willing to

leave Daughter in Foster Mother’s care, Pender explained,

       [Daughter] is two years old and she has already moved four times. And so to
       avoid another traumatic removal, we attempted to save the placement because
       [Foster Mother] doesn’t have a violent history that we know about, and so with
       the safety plan in place, we believed that she could follow the safety plan and
       keep [Daughter] safe.

Pender testified that to her knowledge, Foster Mother had not violated the safety plan. Pender

explained that Foster Mother “was no longer in a relationship with the man that that incident

occurred with,” that she had enrolled Daughter in daycare, and that “[s]he attempted to get the

                                                12
protective order against” the partner but was unable to do so “because she was listed as the

aggressor.”   Pender testified that Foster Mother’s actions had alleviated the Department’s

concern regarding the domestic-violence incident, and the Department had no other concerns

regarding Foster Mother. Pender added that Foster Mother “has an approved home study, and

any concerns that may come up, we can ask for waivers and other ways to help her get licensed

to adopt.”

               On the other hand, the Department still had concerns regarding Mother,

specifically her continuing contact with Boyfriend and the possibility that she was using illegal

drugs, which the Department was unable to rule out because of Mother’s refusal to take drug

tests. 5 Additionally, Pender testified that after the second day of trial, Mother had sent a “hostile

text message” to Foster Mother, “calling her names and stating that she did wrong by going

against [Mother], that the Department was just going to take [Daughter] from her and that she

just should not have testified against [Mother].” Pender also testified that “[t]he pattern of

criminal activity with [Mother] is years long of poor choices causing her to be involved with law

enforcement, and [Foster Mother] does not have a pattern of criminal activity.”

               Foster Mother testified that she had been Daughter’s caregiver for approximately

one year and that she loved her and was bonded to her. Daughter called Foster Mother “Mom,”

and Foster Mother called Daughter “Baby.” Foster Mother recounted that when Daughter first

came into her care, Daughter “started off pretty timid and standoffish and quiet, but she, like,

opened up really fast. She was super smart and energetic and happy.” Foster Mother described

       5
         As we explain below, there was evidence presented during Foster Mother’s testimony
that Mother might have used illegal drugs during the case.
                                                 13
her typical day with Daughter: “We get up, we eat breakfast, we sing all the time. I think she’s

going to be some type of singer. We color, we play with dolls. Sometimes we go outside.”

               Foster Mother testified that she was currently unemployed. However, because

Daughter was about to start daycare, Foster Mother believed “that will open up my schedule for

me to be able to get back into the working field.” She explained, “I have job interviews and

offers lined up. I just didn’t get those—I mean, I just didn’t take anything right away because I

didn’t have a stable [baby]sitter at the time.” Foster Mother added that until she finds a job, she

has money saved, her bills were paid, and her “rent is paid up for the next five months.”

               Foster Mother acknowledged that while Daughter lived with her, she had once

gone to jail for an altercation between her and her then-partner that “got a little physical,” but she

testified that she was no longer in a relationship with that man. She explained that during the

altercation, Mother had been visiting Daughter, and when the police arrived and arrested Foster

Mother, she gave Daughter to Mother, believing that Mother would keep Daughter safe. When

Foster Mother got out of jail three or four days later, she voluntarily agreed to a safety plan with

the Department because she “wanted to show them whatever I needed to do to make sure that

[Daughter] was going to be safe, that’s what I would do.”

               Foster Mother testified that Mother and Boyfriend were in a “back and forth”

relationship during the case and that since Daughter had been in Foster Mother’s care, she had

seen them together between six and eight times. Foster Mother further testified that Mother had

admitted to her that she used methamphetamine. To document that Mother did so, Foster Mother

had taken screenshots of Mother on Facetime smoking some sort of substance through what

appeared to be a glass pipe, and copies of those screenshots were admitted into evidence. Foster

                                                 14
Mother testified that she was hesitant to share those photos with the Department “[b]ecause at

the end of the day, [she] know[s] that [Mother] loves her daughter.”

                Foster Mother testified that if Mother’s rights were terminated, she would be

willing to adopt Daughter. Foster Mother hoped that “at some point . . . she and [Mother] would

be able to, you know, at least coexist with each other” for Daughter’s sake, even though they

were currently not talking to each other. She also testified that if she adopted Daughter, she

would allow Mother to have contact with Daughter because Daughter “needs to know who her

mom is.” Foster Mother had supervised several visits between Mother and Daughter and had

observed that the visits went well. However, Foster Mother testified that she would not allow

Mother to see Daughter if Mother were ever under the influence of drugs. Foster Mother

testified that she did not use drugs, despite an accusation by Mother that she did, and she had

voluntarily agreed to take a drug test after she testified.

                Mother, during her testimony, recounted her history with Boyfriend, including the

incident in February 2020 when Boyfriend was arrested for assaulting Mother. When asked to

explain what had happened during that incident, Mother testified that it was “a sensitive subject”

and that she would “rather not go into detail.” However, she acknowledged that Boyfriend “does

get very violent with” her and that he “put his hands” on her during that incident.

                Mother also provided more information regarding the incident that prompted this

case. She testified that after Father got out of jail in October 2020 for the February assault, he

visited Daughter at Grandmother’s house on Halloween, with Grandmother’s permission. When

Mother “showed up to pick [Daughter] up the next day, [Boyfriend] was still there, of course,

and then he started arguing and fussing with” Mother, who “asked him to leave” and “called the

cops” when he refused. Mother testified that this was the only occasion between October and

                                                  15
December 2020 when she saw Boyfriend. Mother denied that she was ever in a relationship with

Boyfriend, testifying that she was only “getting to know him” during the time when they were

dating, and she denied ramming her vehicle into Boyfriend’s vehicle on December 4, 2020,

testifying that she “didn’t have a car in December” and that she was “out of town” that day.

However, Mother acknowledged that she had anger issues.

              On December 7, 2020, Mother was stopped for speeding and arrested for violating

her probation for an aggravated assault that she had committed in 2018, and she was in jail for

that violation until January 8, 2021. Mother admitted that she had another “brush with the law”

in March 2021, when she was arrested along with her sister for organized criminal activity,

which Mother testified was later downgraded to a theft charge. Mother testified that she had also

been arrested for the vehicle-ramming incident and for allegedly kidnapping Daughter during the

incident discussed above when Foster Mother gave Daughter to her. According to Mother, both

of those charges had been dismissed.

              Mother testified that she did not remember certain events that occurred before and

during the case, including some of her meetings with the Department, because she suffered from

“short-term memory loss” due to a “brain tumor in [her] pituitary glands” that she was not

currently treating. Regarding her court-ordered services, Mother testified that she completed

domestic-violence classes, protective-parenting classes, and eight out of sixteen sessions of the

nurturing-parenting course.    Mother acknowledged that she never took a psychological

evaluation and conceded that she did not take any drug tests and had been unsuccessfully

discharged from individual therapy with two therapists.

              Mother further acknowledged that she had spoken to Boyfriend on the phone in

January 2022 but testified that they “don’t really see each other” anymore, although she admitted

                                               16
that she saw him in February 2022, when her niece died. Mother also testified that Boyfriend

had called her within one month before trial.

               Regarding her relationship with Daughter, Mother testified that she and Daughter

“always had a bond” and were “inseparable.” Mother explained that Grandmother and other

family members had provided her and Daughter with emotional and financial support and that

those family members were actively involved in Daughter’s life. Mother testified that she was

currently living with Grandmother in Austin and that she had been working “[o]ff and on” for

nine months at a fast-food restaurant. If Daughter were returned to her, Mother’s plan was to

continue living with Grandmother.

               Mother testified that she and Foster Mother “had a good bond,” even though they

occasionally argued like members of “a typical family do.” Mother added, “We’re like sisters.

One day we might argue, the next day I’m at the door like, hey, I have a gift for you.” Mother

denied sending Foster Mother a threatening text message after Foster Mother had testified

against her. Mother also testified that she had provided financial support to Foster Mother and

had provided food and clothing to Daughter while she was in Foster Mother’s care.

               Licensed professional counselor Krystal Humphrey discussed the counseling

services she provided to Mother during the case. Humphrey testified that she had established

several therapy goals with Mother that were focused on addressing Mother’s issues with

domestic violence and anger management, but Mother was never able to complete those goals

and was unsuccessfully discharged from therapy. Humphrey attributed the lack of success to

Mother’s “inconsistent attendance” and “disengagement” that prevented Humphrey from “being

able to really track the progress” that Mother had made. Copies of Humphrey’s therapy notes

and her discharge summary were admitted into evidence. In the discharge summary, one of

                                                17
Humphrey’s diagnostic impressions of Mother was that she suffered from “intermittent explosive

disorder,” which Humphrey described in her testimony as an “inability to manage anger in the

moment. It is sudden, often explosive, can be violent physically or verbally, in essence, kind of a

ticking time bomb.”

               CASA volunteer Deborah Smith, who was appointed to this case in February

2022, testified that she had two face-to-face meetings with Foster Mother and Daughter and that

they both “went great.” Smith observed that Daughter appeared bonded to Foster Mother and

“definitely looks to [Foster Mother] for guidance and approval.” Smith also visited Foster

Mother’s home and had no safety concerns with it. Smith testified that CASA did have concerns

with Foster Mother’s financial stability but was “encouraged with the fact that [Daughter] will be

starting day care, that this will free up her time to look for that stability, that—that job.” Smith

also testified that CASA was encouraged by Foster Mother’s “willingness to submit a drug test,

and hopefully come[] back clean.”

               Smith testified that she “talked a couple times” over the phone with Mother and

“exchanged a few text messages” with her. Smith was concerned with Mother’s refusal to

submit to drug tests and to complete counseling services and her inability to make “the necessary

choices” and sacrifices to ensure Daughter’s safety. Smith testified that CASA believed that it

was in Daughter’s best interest to be adopted by Foster Mother and not to be returned to Mother,

due to Mother’s lack of participation in some of the services that were offered to her. CASA

supervisor Meredith Wesley testified similarly that CASA was recommending termination of

Mother’s parental rights because in its view, the concerns identified at the beginning of the case

were still present and Mother failed to complete her services.

                                                18
Analysis

               In arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that termination

of her parental rights is in Daughter’s best interest, Mother points to evidence showing that:

(1) Mother and Daughter are bonded to each other and Mother loves Daughter; (2) Foster Mother

was an unsafe and unstable placement for Daughter, due to the domestic-violence incident, her

possible drug use, and her unemployment at the time of trial; (3) Mother continued to provide for

Daughter’s needs while the case was ongoing, including by taking care of Daughter when Foster

Mother was arrested; and (4) Mother completed some of her services, including domestic-

violence classes and protective-parenting classes.

               Although we agree that the above evidence is contrary to the finding that

termination of Mother’s parental rights is in Daughter’s best interest, particularly the evidence

related to the safety and stability of Foster Mother as Daughter’s placement, 6 ample evidence in

the record establishes that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Daughter’s best

interest. This evidence includes: (1) the history of domestic violence between Mother and

Boyfriend, which included an altercation in which Mother assaulted Boyfriend, an altercation in

which Boyfriend struck Mother several times in their car, and an incident in which Boyfriend, in

       6
            Although we cannot consider any post-trial developments in our sufficiency review,
which is limited to the evidence that was adduced at trial, see D.J. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. &
Protective Servs., No. 03-20-00454-CV, 2021 WL 822491, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 3,
2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); cf. Marines v. State, 292 S.W.3d 103, 106 & n.1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d), we note that in a post-judgment hearing, the attorney
ad litem for Daughter stated that Foster Mother’s drug test “did not come back favorably.” This
prompted the Department to remove Daughter from Foster Mother and place her in non-relative
foster care. Based on the unfavorable test result, the district court indicated that it believed
Foster Mother had committed perjury during her testimony, declared a mistrial, and set a new
trial date, which was the subject of a separate mandamus proceeding. See In re Texas Dep’t of
Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22-00618-CV, 2022 WL 16530863, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin
Oct. 28, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (conditionally granting mandamus relief).
                                                19
the presence of Daughter, “allegedly pulled a firearm on [Mother], loaded a round into the

chamber and pointed the gun directly into [Mother’s] chest area”; (2) Mother continuing to be in

a relationship and have contact with Boyfriend while the case was ongoing, despite their history

of domestic violence and despite Mother being aware that domestic violence was the

Department’s primary concern; (3) Mother’s multiple arrests while the case was ongoing,

including for incidents in which she allegedly rammed her vehicle into Boyfriend’s vehicle and

allegedly engaged in either organized criminal activity or theft; (4) Foster Mother’s testimony

that Mother had admitted to her that she used methamphetamine, photographic evidence

suggesting that Mother smoked some type of substance, and Mother’s refusal to take drug tests

to dispel the Department’s concerns that she used illegal drugs; (5) Mother’s admitted anger

issues and her therapist’s belief that Mother suffered from “intermittent explosive disorder,”

which the therapist described as an “inability to manage anger in the moment” that “is sudden,

often explosive” and “can be violent physically or verbally, in essence, kind of a ticking time

bomb”; (6) Mother’s failure to complete all her services, including a nurturing-parenting course

and a psychological evaluation; (7) Mother’s unsuccessful discharge from two different

therapists, one of whom attributed Mother’s lack of success to Mother’s “inconsistent

attendance” and “disengagement” that prevented Humphrey from “being able to really track the

progress” that Mother had made; (8) Mother’s “inconsistent” visits with Daughter, which the

Department caseworker testified never progressed from supervised to unsupervised, and her

sometimes inconsistent communication with the Department; (9) Mother’s refusal, according to

the Department caseworker, to return Daughter to the Department when Foster Mother had

improperly given Mother possession of Daughter, which led to Mother being arrested for

kidnapping; and (10) Mother’s uncertain living situation and unstable employment at the time of

                                              20
trial, with Mother claiming to live with Grandmother but Grandmother telling the Department

that Mother no longer lived with her, and Mother having been employed “off and on” for the past

nine months.

               Viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, we

conclude that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination of

Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of Daughter. Therefore, the evidence is legally

sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Similarly, in light of the entire record, we cannot

conclude that the evidence contrary to the finding is “so significant” that the factfinder could not

have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the

best interest of Daughter. Accordingly, the evidence is also factually sufficient to support the

best-interest finding.

               We overrule Mother’s sole issue on appeal.

                                         CONCLUSION

               We affirm the district court’s termination decree.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Triana

Affirmed

Filed: April 27, 2023

                                                21