In the Interest E. A. P. and M. A. P.- R. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00934-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 22, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00934-CV ——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF E. A. P. AND M. A. P.-R., Children

On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 122157-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.V. (“Mother”) challenges the trial court’s final decree terminating her

parental rights to her minor children E.A.P. (“Eric”) and M.A.P.-R. (“Mia”) based

on the court’s findings that Mother committed the predicate acts under Texas Family

Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that termination of her rights was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest.1 Mother argues there is legally and factually

insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s findings (1) that she committed the

enumerated predicate acts or (2) that termination of her parental rights was in Eric’s

and Mia’s best interest.

We affirm the decree of termination.

Background

On December 14, 2022, the Department of Family and Protective Services

(“Department”) received a referral from the Angleton Police Department of

neglectful supervision of one-year old Eric by Mother and his stepfather, “Mike.”

According to the referral, the police were dispatched to a home on Farrer Street in

Angleton, Texas after Mike had a mental breakdown and “stated he wanted to be

killed by the police, threatened officers, and threatened to burn the house down.”

Mother, who was seven months pregnant with Mia, and Eric were in the house with

Mike. The home where the incident occurred was owned by Mike’s mother, L.H.

(“Laura”). According to the referral, the officers eventually were able to subdue

Mike and transport him to a psychiatric hospital.

1 To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to them and their foster parents by pseudonyms and we refer to the children’s biological parents as Mother and Father. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2 A. Veronica Jones

Veronica Jones, the Department investigator, testified that she went to Laura’s

home on December 19, 2022, where she spoke to Mike, Mother, and Laura about

the incident on December 14. Jones testified that the home seemed appropriate for

Eric, and she did not get the impression that Mother or Laura felt that Mike was still

a threat. Jones testified that the Department removes a child only if the child is in

immediate danger, and she did not believe that Eric was in immediate danger when

she visited Laura’s home.

Mother told Jones that she was from El Paso, Texas and she and Mike had

been living in Laura’s house for two weeks. According to Mother, they were trying

to put Eric down for a nap. Laura came into the room and tried to take Eric from

Mike “so she could put [Eric] down because [Mike] wasn’t able to console him.”

When Laura told Mike to give Eric to Mother, Mike “became angry and started

yelling and screaming at [Laura] and cussing at her.” Laura and Mother called the

police.

Mother told Jones “there were police [officers] surrounding the house, their

guns were drawn, they were on their knees in the backyard, front yard, and more

kept coming.” Mike had a knife in the waistband of his shorts, and he told the

officers that “if [they] came in, he would hurt them or they would have to kill him if

they came in.” According to Mother, the officers were in the house for about two

3 hours, and Eric was with Mother the entire time. Mother claimed that she stayed in

the house because she was trying to calm Mike down and she was afraid the police

would hurt him. She told Jones she was not concerned for her safety during the

ordeal. She denied that Mike had held her against her will, and she told Jones she

could have left the house at any time.

Mike, who admitted to having a knife with him, told Jones he was afraid of

the police. He admitted stating that “if the police entered the home, they would have

to kill him.” Mike told Jones that Laura’s husband and a mental-health officer from

the sheriff’s department calmed him down, and he was transported to St. Joseph’s

Hospital’s behavioral-health unit. Mike stated he never told Mother she could not

leave nor did he hold Mother against her will. According to Mike, he told Mother

she could go.

Jones testified that Mother, Mike, and Laura signed a safety plan agreeing that

Mother, Mike, and Eric would continue to live with Laura and Laura would always

supervise them. A Department safety plan is not a court order and is not enforceable.

Mother and Mike also agreed to participate in family-based safety services. Jones

asked Mother and Mike to participate in services because she was concerned about

Eric’s safety given that neither Mother nor Mike recognized Eric had been in danger

during the police standoff and also because of Mike’s mental health issues.

4 As part of her investigation, Jones spoke to Eric’s biological father S.S.

(“Steve”). According to Steve, Mother told him that Mike “gets angry” and “had

put his hands on her” before the incident on December 14. Jones also located a

police report from the El Paso Police Department concerning an incident on May 26,

2022 involving Mother, Mike, and Eric. According to the police report, Mike pulled

a gun on Mother’s mother, Isabella Shaw, and Shaw’s boyfriend, causing them to be

in fear for their lives. Mother, who was holding five-month-old Eric in her arms,

was standing next to Mike when he brandished the weapon. According to Jones,

Mother told Mike that things had gone too far, and they walked back inside their

apartment.

Jones, who maintained contact with the family, received additional

information from Mother and Laura after her December 19, 2022 visit to Laura’s

home. After speaking to Laura, Jones was concerned that Mike and Mother were

“arguing and fighting” and the “safety plan was going to break down.” Mother

contacted Jones on December 25, 2022, and she told Jones that it was stressful living

in Laura’s home, and she asked Jones if she could move back to El Paso. Jones told

Mother she could move to El Paso because there was no court order in place

prohibiting her from doing so, but if she moved to El Paso with Eric, Mother needed

to give Jones her new address. This was necessary to allow Jones to transfer the

case to El Paso, and the new caseworker could then “do a home assessment and all

5 of that to ensure that [Eric] would be safe where he was going.” Mother asked Jones

for money to get to El Paso, but Jones was not able to provide Mother with financial

assistance at the time.

Jones testified that Mother called her on January 12, 2023, and told her she

and Mike “didn’t need [the Department’s] services anymore.” Mother told Jones that

the caseworker she met with had not explained things, and they did not like the

interaction that they had with her. Because Mother and Mike were no longer

voluntarily participating in family-based safety services, the Department filed a

petition requesting the court to render a temporary order requiring Mother and Mike

to participate.

The trial court held a hearing on the Department’s petition on February 16,

2023, and Mother and Laura attended. Mother, who had given birth to Mia less than

two weeks prior to the hearing, testified that Mike was working out of town, and he

would not be back soon. Mother agreed to participate in services. Jones testified at

trial that Mother and Laura had been bringing Eric and Mia to court and she became

concerned about the children when she realized they were not in the courtroom for

the February 16 hearing. According to Jones, Mike, Mother, and Laura had

previously told her they did not have anyone other than Laura to watch the children.

After Jones informed her colleagues and the trial court that she was concerned about

6 the children’s absence, the police made a welfare check at Laura’s home and found

Mike there with Eric and Mia. They arrested Mike on an unrelated charge.2

After the hearing, the trial court issued a “Temporary Order For Required

Participation in Services.” Although the Department had petitioned for an order to

participate for Mother and Mike, the court found the Department had been unable to

serve Mike and dismissed Mike from the suit. The order to participate required

Mother to participate in services, and it required Laura to supervise Mother and Mike

at all times Mother or Mike were with Eric.3 Jones testified that her role in the case

ended when the trial court issued the order to participate.

B. Heather Mendoza

Heather Mendoza is a family-based safety service caseworker. She was

assigned to the case on March 10, 2023. Mendoza, who met with the family on

March 13, 2023, returned to Laura’s home a day later after she learned that Mike

had been arrested and charged with the Class A misdemeanor offense of terroristic

threat against a family member. According to the complaint, Mike threatened to

assault Laura, placing Laura in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. On April 6,

2023, Mike pleaded guilty to the offense and was placed on deferred adjudication.

2 The clerk’s record reflects that Mike was arrested on February 16, 2023 for “Assault Causes Bodily Inj[ury], Misdemeanor- Class A, Dismissed.” Jones, however, did not explain why Mike was arrested during the hearing. 3 Mia, who was eleven days old, was not subject to the order to participate.

7 Mendoza testified that the Department was concerned about Mike’s behavior

and his mental stability because this was the third incident of alleged domestic

violence perpetrated by Mike. The Department was also concerned because Mother

and the children continued to live with Mike. At Mendoza’s request, the family

signed an agreement prohibiting Mike from living in Laura’s home due to the

Department’s concerns about Mike’s untreated mental health and the terroristic

threat to Laura.

Mendoza testified that she began receiving calls from Mother and Laura on

March 15, 2023. According to Mendoza, Laura claimed that Mother was not

allowing her to supervise Mother and the children and Mother and Laura were

calling the police on each other. On March 17, Mother told Mendoza that she did

not want to live in Laura’s home, and she wanted to return to El Paso. Mendoza told

Mother that she could not leave with the children because the order to participate

required Laura to supervise Mother any time Mother was with Eric. Mendoza told

Mother that if she provided the Department with the address and contact information

for her family in El Paso, Mendoza would try to have the case transferred there.

Mother gave Mendoza the names of her mother, Isabella Shaw, and her great-

grandmother, Maria Duarte, but the Department was unable to transfer the case to

El Paso at that time because the courtesy caseworker in El Paso was not able to

contact Mother’s relatives.

8 Mendoza testified that the placement broke down completely on March 23,

2023. According to Mendoza, Mother took the children to a medical appointment

and when they returned to Laura’s home, Mother found her and the children’s

belongings in Laura’s yard. Mendoza went to Laura’s home and met with Mother.

According to Mendoza, she and Mother spent hours trying to find somewhere

suitable for Mother and the children to spend the night, but they were unsuccessful.

Mendoza told Mother that if she agreed to leave the children with Laura for a few

days, the Department would not need to remove the children from her care. Mother

refused to allow the children to stay with Laura. Because they had been unable to

locate a suitable alternative placement where Mother and the children could be

supervised, the Department removed the children and placed them in foster care.

On March 24, 2023, the Department filed an original petition seeking to

terminate Mother’s, Mike’s, and Steve’s parental rights to the children. The trial

court scheduled an adversary hearing for April 6, 2023, which was reset to April 20.

At the beginning of the April 20 hearing, the trial court held that Eric and Mia had

to be returned to Mother’s care because the children had been removed without a

court order, and the Department failed to have a hearing before the trial court within

twenty-four hours of the removal as required by the Section 262.105 of the Texas

Family Code. The trial court proceeded with the adversary hearing, which was

recessed until April 27, and then reset for May 11, 2023.

9 On April 21, 2023, Eric was placed with a family friend, and Mia was returned

to Mother and Mike, who were living in an apartment in Freeport, Texas. Mother

was able to rent the apartment with $900 she received from Duarte, her great-

grandmother, after the children were placed in foster care. Mendoza testified that

she visited Mother’s apartment daily to check on Mia because they were concerned

about Mike’s mental health.

On May 6, 2023, Mendoza asked the police to make a welfare check at

Mother’s apartment because she had trouble arranging to meet with Mother at her

apartment. Mother, Mike, and Mia were in the apartment when the police arrived.

Mother and Mike were arrested for the felony offense of robbery after the police ran

a warrant check. The record reflects that the grand jury no-billed those charges on

July 7, 2023. The Department took Mia into care after Mother and Mike were

arrested and they placed her with a foster family, M.L. (“Mary”) and G.L. (“Greg”).

On May 8, 2023, the Department filed an original petition for conservatorship

of Mia and termination of Mother’s and Mike’s parental rights to Mia. At the

beginning of the adversary hearing on May 11, the parties announced they had

entered into an agreement to have the Department appointed as Eric’s and Mia’s

temporary managing conservator. Eric would be placed in the same foster home as

Mia, and Mike and Mother would do services. The Department also agreed to

conduct a home study of Shaw within thirty days of the hearing, but it was unable to

10 place the children with Shaw because she moved around a lot and had an old case

that was “unable to determine.” Consistent with the parties’ agreement, the trial

court entered temporary orders that designated the Department as the children’s

temporary managing conservator and required Mother and Mike to participate in

court-ordered services.

After the hearing, the Department created family service plans for Mother,

Mike, and Steve which among other things, required them to remain drug- and

alcohol-free, maintain employment, provide a safe and stable home environment for

the children, participate in counseling, attend all court proceedings, and visit

regularly with the children.

C. Dr. Jenny Stadler

Dr. Jenny Stadler is a clinical psychologist. She was hired by the Department

to complete psychological assessments for Mother, Mike, and Steve. Stadler’s

psychological evaluations of Mother, Mike, and Steve were admitted into evidence.

Stadler met with Mother at the Department’s Angleton office twice in June

2023. Mother, who did not have a valid driver’s license, reported that she was

working at McDonald’s and a vape store. She told Stadler that she was living with

a friend at the time, but she planned to get her own apartment. Stadler testified that

Mother seemed “like a relatively competent young woman.”

11 When asked about her relationship with Mike, Mother told Stadler that they

lived together for about a year, but they were currently separated because Mother

“felt like [Mike] was lacking as a man because he wasn’t providing for her well

financially or providing for the child financially.” Stadler testified that it was not

“really clear what the dynamics of their relationship were” when she spoke to Mother

because although Mother denied wanting to get back together with Mike, Mother

also told her that she and Mike were “working on it slowly” and she did not “plan

on breaking up with him.” Stadler noted that Mike’s and Mother’s appointments

with her were scheduled “concurrent with child visits” at the Department’s office,

and Mother and Mike arrived and left the office together.

Stadler also asked Mother about the incident at Laura’s home on December

14, 2022. According to Stadler, Mother blamed Laura for the Department becoming

involved with the family and claimed that the Department was only involved because

of Laura’s conflict with Mike. In her report, Stadler noted that Mother told her that

Mike and Laura argued about putting Eric to bed, and the verbal dispute escalated

when Laura tapped Mike on the shoulder several times. Mother decided to call the

police because “in the past ‘we’d call the police and they’d deescalate the situation.’”

According to Mother, that was the first time Mike experienced a “mental outburst.”

Mother told Stadler

The cops showed up; I wasn’t able to talk to them; [Mike] was tripping and going crazy; the police had their hands on their holsters already; 12 [Mike] was threatening to hurt himself if the cops came into the house; “You’re going to have to shoot me if you come in”; he had a knife in his backpack; I was trying to calm him down; my baby [Eric] was sleeping; the police, fire department, SWAT came out; [Mike] wasn’t understanding; finally they had a mental advocate come out, and [Mike’s] stepfather came out; they talked to him and transferred him to the hospital.

Mother told Stadler that “she had remained in the home to ‘calm him down; I do

know what it’s like to be in mental distress; I see the news.’” When asked if Mother

was potentially unable to appreciate the seriousness of certain situations, Stadler

testified that Mother was intelligent, acted like an adult and had “reasonable insight”

for someone her age.

According to Stadler, Mother showed an interest in Eric’s and Mia’s lives and

there was nothing about their relationship that seemed abnormal, and she had not

gotten the impression that Mother would knowingly place the children in danger.

Stadler testified that the results of Mother’s written assessment indicated that Mother

was not motivated to engage in services, but “when I spoke to her, she seemed to be

motivated.” According to Stadler, Mother “certainly seemed engaged in the process

and was paying attention to what was in her best interest and her children’s best

interest.”

Stadler testified that Mother, who reported having seizures three times the

previous year, had a “possible seizure disorder,” but nothing indicated that Mother

had an emotional disorder. Mother told Stadler that she had “smoked weed a couple

13 of times” and she had a “bad experience” the one time she drank alcohol. Mother

told Stadler that she had been arrested twice as an adult for assault by contact and

robbery. According to Mother, the robbery charge arose from a recent incident in

which Mother, who was nineteen years old, purchased an alcoholic drink for

somebody using an app and the person she bought the drink from alleged that Mother

stole it.

Stadler diagnosed Mother with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,

“combined presentation, which is impulsive and difficulty with attention” and she

recommended that Mother receive “individual therapy, primarily based on strategies

to improve impulse control.” She also “strongly recommended that [Mother] have

a medical evaluation to evaluate the seizures.”

Stadler interviewed Mike at the Department’s office in June 2023 and July

2023. When asked why he and Mother were separated, Mike told Stadler that it was

“a personal reason” and “they planned to reunify.” Stadler testified that Mike

seemed to be “having some internal conflict in his role in what happened and what

led to being involved with [the Department],” because he stated that he should not

have argued with Laura but stated that “she was still going to shove me anyway.”

Mike told Stadler that he was holding Eric when Laura pushed him, causing him to

“hit his heel on something, which caused a lot of pain, and then that led to this—

somebody was acting out, somebody called the police, and then the SWAT team

14 came and it was a—you know, a big incident.” He told Stadler that the pain to his

heel “caused an escalation in their argument and then [Mother] felt like she needed

to call the police to de-escalate them.” Mike reported that he was in the hospital for

two days and was diagnosed with anxiety. In her report, Stadler noted that in March

2023, Mike told the Department that he “was not following through with psychiatric

care.”

Mike told Stadler that he had been arrested four times and was on probation

for a Class A misdemeanor. Mike also reported that he had a pending robbery charge

which Stadler believed was related to Mother’s pending robbery charge.

Although Stadler diagnosed Mike with only Adjustment Disorder with

Anxiety, she was concerned that Mike was suffering from other more severe

conditions, including Post-traumatic Stress Disorder with possible dissociative

symptoms, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum

Disorder, but Stadler did not have enough information either to rule out or confirm

a diagnosis.

Stadler met with Steve at the Brazoria County Jail in July 2024. Steve told

Stadler that he had been in Eric’s life for only two weeks and the last time he saw

Eric in person, Mother and Mike showed up and he went off” on Steve during the

incident. According to Steve, Mother “stole a car” and she and Mike “kidnapped

my son.” Steve reported that he had been arrested four times, charged with burglary

15 of a building, burglary of a vehicle, and sexual assault of a minor, and he would need

to register as a sex offender when he was released. Steve claimed the minor “lied to

him about her age and he was unaware that she was underage.”

D. Joshua McCain

Deputy Joshua McCain is a mental-health deputy with the Brazoria County

Sheriff’s Office, and he was dispatched to Laura’s home on December 14, 2022.

McCain’s incident report and a recording of his body camera footage were admitted

into evidence. The video was played for the jury. Several officers with the Angleton

Police Department were standing outside the home when McCain arrived.

When McCain first approached Mike, Mike was standing in the doorway of

the home holding “a large kitchen knife in his right hand” and “threatening to kill

any police officer[s] that stepped foot inside the door, making statements such as,

‘you’re gonna have to kill me.’” Mike told the officers he had “alcohol with a rag

in it and he’s going to blow it up” if anyone comes inside. McCain testified that

Mike was dressed all in black and he “appeared to have a face mask on and a thick

layer of clothing, like a hoodie or some outer shirt that was thick” and he told

McCain that he was dressed that way because he did not want to be tazed. According

to McCain, Mike’s “largest concern was going to jail, and he kept [stating] he would

rather everyone die than go back to jail.” McCain testified that the “officers outside

16 were holding lethal coverage around the perimeter,” meaning, they were surrounding

the home with their guns drawn.

Mike agreed to speak to McCain after McCain explained that he was there to

help Mike, not arrest him. McCain told Mike that he would only come inside the

home if Mike put down the knife. When McCain entered the home, he “immediately

observed a pregnant female [Mother], and what appeared to be a 1-year-old child

[Eric] standing next to” Mike. Mother, who was standing three or four feet from

Mike, was holding Eric in her arms. Although Mike had put down the knife, McCain

noticed that Mike was “holding what appeared to be a makeshift Molotov cocktail

[in his left hand], and a lighter in his right hand.” McCain testified that a Molotov

cocktail is “an alcohol bottle with a rag shoved in it that when you light it and throw

it, it can cause a fire.”

Mike told McCain that if the officers outside did not move back, “this bitch is

gonna burn.” Mother asked McCain if she and Mike could go for a walk to get him

to calm down, and McCain told her that he did not mind if they went for a walk.

McCain described Mike as being in a “state of anger due to possible PTSD.” At one

point, Mike told McCain he had four or five other knives.

McCain walked back outside because Mike had “picked up the knife, and I

told him I wasn’t going to continue talking to him if that was in his hand.” McCain

asked Mike if Mother and Eric could leave, and Mike told McCain, Mother was “not

17 going anywhere,” and neither was Eric. McCain interpreted Mike’s statement as a

threat to Mother. When asked if Mike ever threatened Eric or Mother, McCain

testified, “Not directly, but I believe that in his statement that ‘I’ll burn the house

down with everybody in it’ is an indirect threat.” According to McCain,

“[E]verything [Mike] said was indirect. It was never a direct statement of harm

towards [Mother], but it was definitely a broad spectrum saying that he was going

to.” McCain never saw Mike point the knife at Mother.

When asked about Mother’s demeanor during the incident, McCain testified

that Mother appeared to be a little nervous at first, but she never appeared to be in

distress or scared. Mother was not crying or shaking when she spoke to McCain.

According to McCain, Mother was talking on her phone and making jokes towards

the end of the standoff. McCain did not know if Mother was in the house the entire

time, but he also did not see her leave.

When asked if the circumstances in the house with Mike during the standoff

presented a dangerous situation, McCain testified that “it was 100 percent

dangerous” for Mother and Eric to be in the house. According to McCain, the

situation “might not have been as dangerous there towards the end, but at the

beginning absolutely.”

18 E. Steve

Steve, Eric’s biological father, testified at trial that he was serving a five-year

sentence for the offense of sexual assault of a minor. He pleaded guilty to the charge

on April 6, 2023 and was eligible for parole in 2025. Steve testified that Eric came

into the Department’s care because of the December 14, 2022 police standoff

involving Mother and Mike.

Steve testified that the first time he met Eric, Eric was living with Mother and

Mike in Brazoria County. Eric, who was born in El Paso, was a few months old and

Steve was only around Eric for two weeks. When asked about Stadler’s testimony

regarding the last time Steve saw Eric, Steve testified that he was putting Eric in the

car and he and Mother were taking Eric to buy diapers and pizza. Steve saw Mike

approaching the car, and he asked Mother why Mike was there. According to Steve,

Mother replied that she did not know why Mike was there and she told Steve to get

in the car. Steve testified that he walked up to Mike and Mike punched him, then

got in the car, and Mother drove off with Mike and Eric. Steve did not know why

Mike punched him.

Steve testified that he did not believe Eric was in danger when Eric was with

Mother. But when questioned by the Department about the December 14, 2022

police standoff and the incident with Mother and Mike the last time he saw Eric,

Steve admitted those were dangerous situations.

19 F. Mother

Mother testified that she, Mike, and Eric had moved from El Paso to Laura’s

home in Angleton two weeks before the December 14, 2022 incident. According to

Mother, Mike and Laura began arguing when Mike was trying to put Eric down for

a nap. After Laura pushed Mike, Mother tried to take Eric from Mike and Mother

called the police. When asked why she remained in the house after she called the

police, Mother testified that everything was happening very quickly, and she thought

the police were coming to deescalate the situation. She testified that she was in

shock when the police arrived, but she was “familiar with the situation” and she

knew how to “stay calm and how to like work around the situation.” Mother testified

that she told Mike to “tell the police to have a mental health advocate come out”

because she was “scared because [she] knew how bad this could escalate.” Mother

testified that she “didn’t know it was going to escalate that extreme, but [she] knew

it possibly could have escalated into something that happened.” When asked what

she meant by “something bad happening,” Mother testified, “Just like police

brutality or something of that sort.”

Mother testified that things escalated when Mike told the police he would kill

one of them if they came into the house. When asked why she did not leave the

house after Mike threatened the police, Mother testified she did not leave because

Mike “didn’t direct that threat towards me. He directed it towards the police.”

20 Mother testified that she was not afraid for herself or Eric. She did not believe that

Eric was in physical danger during the police standoff because Eric was with her,

and she did not believe Mike would be physically aggressive towards her or Eric.

When asked if she thought Mike “holding a Molotov cocktail and . . . threatening a

fire was a danger to [Eric,]” Mother testified that, at the time, she did not believe

Eric was in danger. She said she was not bothered by watching the video of

McCain’s body camera, but watching the video gave her a new perspective of the

“actual whole situation of its being a hostage situation” and “being actually very,

very dangerous.” Mother testified it did not feel like she was in a hostage situation

at the time. She testified she had no intention of leaving the house, but she felt like

she could leave the house with Eric anytime she wanted to go. When asked if Mike

had ever “blown up a house before. . .that day,” Mother said no. Mike had been

angry before but that was the first time she witnessed him having a mental

breakdown.

When asked about the May 2022 incident in El Paso when Mike allegedly

held a gun on Shaw, Mother testified that Mike was wearing his gun on his hip. She

testified that Mike had not pointed the gun at Shaw or anyone else. Mother was

pregnant with Mia and was holding Eric in her arms during the incident and no one

pointed a gun at her or threatened her. She did not believe Eric was in danger.

Although he was angry, Mike “wasn’t manic as he was on the 14th of December.”

21 When asked why Mike hit Steve and she drove away with Mike and Eric

immediately after, Mother testified that Steve was lying about it because it never

happened.

Mother continued to live with Mike after he was discharged from the

psychiatric hospital and she never felt that Eric was in danger around Mike. Mother

testified that she stayed with Mike because she was pregnant with Mike’s daughter,

Mia, and Mike was working and they had plans to get their own apartment and start

a family. They lived with Mike’s mother Laura because they did not have anywhere

else to go at the time. Mother was not working at the time, and she was financially

dependent on Mike. Mother testified that when they were together, she believed that

Mike was a good father because he used to change the children’s diapers, and clothe,

bathe, and feed them, and she trusted him around the children. She does not trust

Mike or believe that he is a good father anymore.

Jones came to Laura’s home a few days after the standoff. When Mother

spoke to Jones in private, Mother agreed that the family needed some services, such

as counseling and anger management, and she also agreed to allow Laura to

supervise her and Mike when they were with Eric. The arrangement began to

deteriorate quickly, and Mother called Jones on December 25, 2022, and told her

that she wanted to move back to El Paso. Jones told Mother she and Eric could move

back to El Paso and the case would need to be transferred there. Although Jones

22 told her she could leave, Mother testified that she did not feel she could go to back

to El Paso because she had signed a safety plan. Mother did not move at that time

because she did not “have the means to leave” and Jones did not offer her services

or assistance relocating to El Paso.

Mother told Jones a few weeks later that she no longer needed any services

because the caseworker who had come to the house to meet with her and Mike was

“saying a lot of like outrageous things” and Jones was only communicating with

Mike and Laura, not her.

On February 16, 2023, Mother attended a hearing for the Department’s

petition for an order to participate. At the hearing, Mother agreed to participate in

services, which included a domestic violence evaluation, individual therapy, a

mental health evaluation, and an “orientation for parenting.”

Mother testified that Mike was arrested on March 14, 2023 for threatening to

kill Laura, and her relationship with Laura got worse after Mike was arrested. On

March 23, 2023, Laura threw Mother’s and children’s belongings on the front lawn

and kicked Mother out of the house. Mother, who was eighteen years old at the time,

testified that Mia was six-weeks old, and Eric was one year old. According to

Mother, she and the children waited in Laura’s driveway from 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. until

9:00 p.m. while Mother tried to find a place for her and the children to stay that was

acceptable to the Department. According to Mother, the Department did not make

23 any effort to help her find a place to stay other than giving her a list of shelters she

could call to find out if they had availability. Mother contacted the local shelters on

the list, but none had room for her and the children. According to Mother, Mendoza

suggested that she leave the children with Laura for a few days, but Mother refused

to leave the young children alone with Laura because Mother did not trust her.

Mother testified that she planned for her and the children to stay with a friend that

night, but the Department refused to allow the children to stay with Mother’s friend

because it was not approved placement. Although she wanted to move back to El

Paso, Mendoza advised her that the court order required her and the children to stay

in Laura’s home.

Mother testified that when they were not able to locate a place for Mother and

the children to stay by 9:00 p.m., the Department told Mother they had to remove

the children from her care and place them in foster care. Mother testified that when

the Department asked for the names of possible placements for the children, Mother

gave the Department Shaw’s name and the names of Mother’s stepfather, uncle and

her aunt, and all of them were willing to take the children.

Mother stayed with a friend after Laura kicked her out of her home and she

used $900 her great-grandmother sent her to rent an apartment on North Avenue in

Freeport. She testified that although she could have moved back to El Paso with the

money, she decided to stay in Brazoria County to be close to Eric and Mia. When

24 asked why she moved to El Paso in February 2024, even though the children were

still in Brazoria County, Mother testified that the Department told her the children

would be returned to her if she “moved back to El Paso with [her] support system.”

She testified she would have moved to El Paso in March 2023 if the Department had

told her then that moving to El Paso would help her get the children back.

Mother and Mike lived in the apartment on North Avenue for a few months

and Shaw, who moved to Freeport to “help with the case,” rented an apartment in

the same complex where Mother and Mike were living. After the Department told

Mother that the arrangement “wouldn’t work,” Mother moved to a new apartment

in May or June 2023 on Yaupon Street. Mother testified that she could not afford to

pay the rent for the apartment on Yaupon Street on her own and she was evicted in

January 2024, because she and Mike broke up in November 2023, and he moved out

of the apartment and stopped supporting Mother financially. Mother testified that

she did not believe Mike was a good father when they lived together in the apartment

in Freeport, but she stayed with him anyway until they broke up in November 2023.

Mother filed a motion in December 2023 asking the court to return the

children to her care. The hearing on her motion was held in January 2024. Mother

acknowledged that the trial judge told her she needed to do three things, and the

court would determine at the next hearing whether the children would be returned to

her. Mother acknowledged she was required to submit to a drug test the day of the

25 hearing, and she had to allow the Department to visit her apartment on Yaupon, but

she did not remember if the trial judge had also asked her to obtain “suitable

transportation and car seats for the kids.” Mother testified that she took the drug test

and allowed the Department to visit her home. By the time of trial, Mother had a

valid driver’s license, and her grandmother had bought her a car and was paying for

auto insurance. Mother stated that she was making monthly payments for the car to

her grandmother.

Mother stayed with a friend after she was evicted from her apartment on

Yaupon Street on January 4, 2024. When asked if that was when she decided to

return to El Paso, Mother testified that she wanted to stay in Brazoria County and

when she spoke to the Department about her options, the Department told her that if

she moved back to El Paso “with [her] support system, that they would transfer the

case.”

Mother returned to El Paso in February 2024. She moved several times after

she returned to El Paso before she rented a large one-bedroom apartment on Francis

Street. Mother testified that the apartment on Francis Street was the ninth place she

had lived since Eric was born in December 2021. She leased the apartment on March

1, 2024, and she pays $950 per month in rent plus utilities. She was current on her

rent payments. Mother testified that she does not have any roommates, and she had

not been in contact with Mike for eight months.

26 According to Mother, the apartment has everything Eric and Mia need

including beds, clothes, and toys. There are schools near the apartment and Mother

is trying to enroll Eric in Head Start. She is eligible for daycare through the county,

and she has family in El Paso that are willing to help with childcare if daycare is not

available.

Mother testified that the courtesy caseworker in El Paso visited her apartment

on Francis Street in June 2024 and took photographs. She admitted the caseworker

had tried to visit Mother’s previous homes, but she was not home, and when the

caseworker stopped by Mother’s great-grandmother’s home where Mother was

living at the time, her great-grandmother was sick and would not let anyone in the

house.

Mother agreed that she was supposed to visit with the children regularly and

the Department came up with a visitation plan that would allow her to see the

children once a week for at least an hour, and the in-person visitation plan never

changed. Mother testified that she brought Eric and Mia food and read them books

during her visits, and she only missed one visit with the children when she lived in

Brazoria County. She was not able to visit with the children in person once she

moved to El Paso. Mother testified she had not visited with the children while she

was in Brazoria County for the trial because the Department did not offer her a visit.

27 She admitted, however, that she did not ask the Department or anyone else if she

could visit the children.

Mother, who moved to El Paso in February 2024, testified that at some point

she asked Naquita Paul, Eric’s and Mia’s conservatorship caseworker, to arrange for

visits with the children, and Paul arranged for her to visit with the children virtually

using Zoom. According to Mother, she was able to attend the virtual visits initially,

but the Department changed the time of the visits, the Zoom links provided by the

Department did not always work, and the fact that El Paso was in a different time

zone than Brazoria County caused some confusion.

Mother admitted that she missed “a couple” of visits and her last visit with the

children occurred on July 2, 2024, about a week before Hurricane Beryl made

landfall and impacted Brazoria County. Mother testified that she tried joining

another scheduled virtual visit in September, but no one else was there, so she sent

a text message to Paul and asked Paul if she was going to attend. According to

Mother, Paul sent her an updated link in September 2024, but the link “didn’t work.”

She did not remember if she told anyone that the link was not working, but she

believed that she emailed Paul about the issue. When asked how many times she

had emailed Paul and asked to visit with the children, Mother testified that she did

not remember the number of times she had contacted Paul, but she had everything

28 in writing and her attorney was copied on the text messages and emails she sent to

Paul.

Mother testified she was also required to maintain employment and provide

her caseworker with proof of employment. Mother testified that she worked briefly

at a phone-repair shop when she first arrived in El Paso and was paid in cash. She

also worked at a Valero gas station for six months and had a work-from-home

customer service job. Mother testified that she currently works at a Mexican

restaurant where she is paid in cash, and she has worked for Door Dash and Spark

as a delivery driver. She testified that she can financially support her children

without child support, and she receives Medicaid. Mother is planning to get her

GED and then attend community college on a scholarship and become an MRI

technician.

Mother testified that she did not provide Paul with proof of her customer

service job even though Paul asked her to provide proof of employment. According

to Mother, her courtesy caseworker in El Paso only asked her if she was employed.

Mother testified that Paul asked her for proof of employment when Mother was

working at Valero and Mother provided proof, but she gave it to her attorney, not

Paul. According to Mother, Paul did not ask her to provide proof that she was

employed by the Mexican restaurant, and she did not recall telling Paul that she did

29 not have a pay stub because the restaurant paid her in cash. She denied that Paul

told her she could submit evidence that she was being paid in cash. Mother testified

that although she was required to give the Department proof of employment, she

provided proof to her attorney.

Mother’s family service plan also required her to participate in services

provided by the Department. Mother testified that she attended individual therapy

with a counselor provided by the Department, she completed therapy in 2023, and

she participated in a psychosocial evaluation in June 2023. She also attended a parent

collaboration meeting, but when asked what she learned from the meeting, Mother

testified, “Just things I already knew.” According to Mother, it was “just like the

basic rundown of like parent and like collaboration” and they covered “like how the

parents are like acting, what are the strengths and the weakness as the family, how

are you going to handle certain situations.”

When asked what she learned during her parenting class, Mother testified that

she “learned like how to handle situations. . .” When asked what she meant when

she testified that she “already knew” what they were teaching, Mother testified, “Just

the basic parenting classes that they have provided through that conferences,” such

as “don’t leave the baby, make sure the baby has a crib, don’t sleep with the baby.”

Mother agreed that the parenting collaboration course was “about getting along with

30 the other parent,” including “trying to deescalate situations where you would have

an argument,” and “making it safe for the kids.”

G. Naquita Paul

Naquita Paul is Eric’s and Mia’s conservatorship caseworker, and she was

assigned to their case in May 2023 after Department was appointed as the children’s

temporary managing conservator and the children were removed from Mother’s

care. Paul first met with Mother and Mike in April 2023 when Paul and Mendoza

went to Mother’s and Mike’s apartment in Freeport. Although Paul had not been

assigned to the case, she accompanied Mendoza on her visit because Mendoza was

“kind of afraid” of Mike. According to Paul, she “tag[ged] along for safety purposes

and also just to reintroduce myself that I was going to be the current worker.” Paul

testified that Mike was “kind of confrontational” with Mendoza.

Paul testified that Eric and Mia had been placed with Mary and Greg when

she visited with Mother and Mike in April 2023. According to Paul, Eric “appeared

to be happy and bonded” with Mary and Greg. When Paul visited Mary’s and Greg’s

home, Eric would want them to read him a book or otherwise engage with him

throughout the visit. Although Mia was very young, Paul testified that it appeared

that Mia was bonded with Mary and Greg because when Mary and Greg spoke to

Mia, Mia would smile or reach for them and Mia and Eric were clearly bonded with

one another. Paul testified that she never heard Eric refer to Mary and Greg as mom

31 and dad. She did not have any concerns when she visited the children at their foster

parents’ home.

Paul testified that the Department had tried to place Eric and Mia with family

members and requested a home study for Shaw. Shaw’s home study, however, was

not approved because Shaw had a prior case involving the Department that was

“unable to determine” and Shaw, who had moved several times within the past two

years, lacked the stability the children needed. According to Paul, Mother did not

provide her with a name of any other family member as a possible placement for the

children.

Paul testified that Mother had a family service plan in place when Paul was

assigned to the case. Mother’s plan required her to (1) “obtain and maintain legal

verifiable employment or other source of verifiable income” and provide the

Department with supporting documentation, (2) have “a current valid ID to identify

herself, utilize public transportation, and form a positive support system for

transportation to and from services,” (3) “build a positive support system to help

with the care of her children while maintaining employment,” (4) “maintain a safe

and stable home environment that is free from safety and hazardous conditions [and

is] drug and alcohol free,” (5) “allow her CPS caseworker to visit her home both

announced and unannounced to monitor the home environment,” (6) initiate and

complete parenting classes and provide a certificate of completion, (7) participate in

32 eight to ten individual counseling sessions, (8) “actively participate in services

outlined in her service plan,” (9) attend at least one Parent Collaboration Group

Meeting, (10) initiate and actively participate in a psychological evaluation and

follow all the therapist’s recommendations, and (11) “attend all visits with her

children, court dates, and conference meetings and maintain contact with the

agency.”

Paul testified that Mother’s family service plan required her to maintain a safe

and stable home. According to Paul, Mother had an apartment on Yaupon Street in

Freeport until she fell behind on her rent payments and was evicted in January 2024.

Mother gave Paul a lease for her apartment on Francis Street in El Paso that began

on March 1, 2024. When asked if the fact Mother had maintained the same address

for seven months was evidence of stability, Paul testified that she could not verify

that Mother “consistently lived at that address for seven months.” Paul testified that

she had not personally seen Mother’s home on Francis Street, but the courtesy

caseworker who visited the home in June 2024 told Paul she was not concerned

about the home. Paul testified that the Department was concerned that Mike was

with Mother when Mother moved to El Paso, but it did not have any evidence he

was with her. Paul lost track of Mike’s whereabouts in January 2024.

Paul testified that the home visits are important because they allow the

Department to assess the safety and appropriateness of the house for the children.

33 Paul testified that the Department was eventually able to visit Mother’s apartment

on Yaupon Street and her apartment on Francis Street, but Mother regularly failed

to cooperate with the Department’s efforts to verify the safety and appropriateness

of Mother’s homes.

Regarding Mother’s requirement to maintain employment and provide the

Department with proof of employment or income, Paul testified that Mother had

reported working at various jobs throughout the case, including McDonald’s, Burger

King, Valero, Uber, and a Mexican restaurant in El Paso. According to Paul, Mother

told her in August 2023 that she was working at McDonald’s, and she was being

promoted to crew leader. However, when Paul contacted the McDonald’s where

Mother had been working, Paul was informed that Mother had been fired in August

2023.

Paul testified that although she had asked Mother to provide proof of

employment, Mother only gave her one check stub from McDonald’s and did not

provide any proof of employment after she moved to El Paso. After Mother told

Paul that she was being paid in cash for a job in El Paso, Paul told Mother she could

have her employer write a letter stating how much Mother earns and how many hours

Mother works, but Mother never provided Paul with a letter from her employer.

After Mike informed Jones in November 2023 that Mother was using drugs,

Paul amended Mother’s family service plan in December 2023 to require Mother to

34 submit to random drug testing. Mike also told Paul that Mother had been using him

for his money and when he had no money, “she would kick him out.” He also told

Paul that he had filed a police report because Mother was trying to have him killed.

According to Mike, Mother was “unstable at the time because she was hanging with

a gang banger” and she had “some man living with her.” Paul spoke to Mother about

Mike’s allegations, and she asked Mother to take a drug test. Paul scheduled the

drug test for December 17, 2023, but when Paul saw Mother two days later during a

visit with the children, Mother informed Paul that she had not gone for the drug test

because of transportation issues, and she would take the test after the visit.

According to Paul, Mother provided a urine sample, but she refused to provide a hair

sample. Paul testified that although Mother’s original family service plan had

required her to remain drug and alcohol free, it did not require Mother to submit to

random drug testing because the Department was not concerned about Mother’s

possible drug use at the time.

In December 2023, Mother filed a motion for review asking the court to return

the children to her care. The trial court held a hearing on Mother’s motion on

December 21, 2023. During the hearing, the court stated that before the children

could be returned to her care, Mother had to take a urinalysis and a hair follicle test,

allow the Department to inspect her home, and provide a list of names of people who

could transport the children. The court stated that it would return the children to

35 Mother if Mother’s drug tests were negative, and Paul believed that Mother’s

apartment was appropriate for the children. Mother took a urinalysis and a hair

follicle test on December 21, 2023, and although her urine sample was negative, her

hair sample tested positive for marijuana.

Paul also visited Mother’s apartment on Yaupon Street on December 21,

2023, where Mother claimed to be living alone. When asked if she saw anything

during her visit that indicated that Mike was still living there, Paul testified that she

did not see any men’s clothes or toiletries in the apartment, but she found

prescription medication belonging to Mike. Paul, however, did not believe Mike

was living there because Mike had “started making the allegations against” Mother

in November 2023.

Regarding Mother’s drug testing requirements, Paul testified that it is the

Department’s policy to ask parents to do random drug testing twice a month for

urinalysis and “hair is quarterly.” She testified that she receives the results of every

drug test a parent takes, and she received the results of every drug test Mother took

in this case. According to Paul, a parent’s failure to submit to drug testing when

requested is considered a positive drug screen.

When Paul met with Mother on January 23, 2024, Mother told her that she

had been evicted from her apartment on Yaupon Street and she was staying with a

friend in Webster. Mother was sent for drug testing that day, but Mother did not

36 appear. Paul later testified that Mother submitted to a make-up drug test in January,

but Paul did not have a record of any test results. When asked about the results of

Mother’s March 2024 drug test, Paul testified that although Mother’s urinalysis was

negative for drugs, Mother’s hair follicle test was positive, which indicated to Paul

that Mother was “using some—some substance.” Mother’s April 10, 2024 test was

negative. Mother was also sent for drug testing on May 3, 2024 and May 21, 2023.

Paul did not have results for a May 3, 2024 test and Mother’s May 21, 2024

urinalysis was positive for marijuana. Paul testified that the Department asked

Mother to take a drug test on July 8, 2024, but she did not have test results for that

date. Mother was also sent for drug testing in August 2024 and on September 3,

2024, but Paul did not receive results for those tests.

Mother’s family service plan required her to attend all weekly visits with Eric

and Mia. Paul testified that Mother attended most of the weekly in-person visits

with the children while she lived in Brazoria County, but Mother missed the visits

on October 3, 2023, October 10, 2023, and October 17, 2023. Paul later learned that

Mother had been looking for housing in El Paso in October 2023. She testified that

Mother moved to El Paso in February 2024, but Mother did not ask Paul about

setting up virtual visits with the children before she moved. She also did not ask to

see Mia on her first birthday in February 2024 or provide a birthday gift. Mother

37 did not ask Paul about Mia’s birthday or ask about the child’s medical appointments.

Paul did not know that Mother moved to El Paso until Mother told her afterwards.

Paul testified that after Mother moved to El Paso, Paul arranged for weekly

virtual visits beginning in March 2024. Although Mother initially attended the

virtual visits, the visits were disrupted in July 2024, when Hurricane Beryl struck

the Texas Coast causing widespread power outages, and Paul rescheduled one of the

visits for July 19, 2024. According to Paul, Mother did not attend any other virtual

visits or reach out to Paul regarding the visits until mid-September 2024. At

Mother’s request, Paul scheduled the virtual visits to resume on October 1, 2024, but

Mother did not attend any visits in October. Paul testified that except for Mother’s

email in September 2024, Mother did not make any efforts to visit with the children

or complain about being unable to visit with them. According to Paul, Mary and

Greg never reported that the children behaved poorly after visiting with Mother or

complained about the visits and they always made the children available for the

weekly virtual visits with Mother.

According to Paul, weekly visits are important to maintain the bond between

the parent and a young child and it reinforces the message to the children that even

if they are not living with their parent, their parent is “there for them, that parent

loves them, and, you know, will take care and meet all of their needs.” Paul testified

that Mother had not seen the children in person since February 2024, and her last

38 virtual visit with the children was in July 2024, three months before trial. According

to Paul, the children appeared to recognize Paul because she visited them in person

at their foster parents’ home once a month and weekly when they were having virtual

visits, but Paul “wouldn’t say they recognized” Mother.

Paul testified that reunification with the parents was the Department’s primary

goal for the children when they came into the Department’s care and the concurrent

goal was a fictive kin conservatorship. In January 2024, the Department’s goals

changed and their primary goal for the children was a relative conservatorship, and

the concurrent goal was unrelated adoption. According to Paul, the Department did

not have a potential conservator or adoptive parent in mind.

After Mother moved to El Paso in February 2024, Paul asked Mary and Greg

if they were willing to be a long-term placement for the children. Paul testified that

the Mary and Greg, who had always been very supportive of reuniting the children

with their parents, agreed to be a long-term placement for Eric and Mia if it was

necessary to do so. According to Paul, the Department’s goal in this case changed

at a permanency conference in May 2024, and their primary goal for the children

was unrelated adoption. Mary and Greg intervened in the case on June 5, 2024.

Paul testified that Mother had completed several of her provider services, such

as participating in individual therapy, completing a domestic violence assessment,

attending a parent collaboration group meeting, participating in a psychological

39 evaluation, and participating in parenting classes, and although it was not required

by the Department, Mother had given Paul a certificate for intensive outpatient

services which Paul assumed were for substance abuse. Paul could not verify the

certificate’s authenticity. According to Paul, there was a difference between

“completing services, checking off boxes, and actually complying with the family

plan of service” because compliance required a lifestyle change and Mother had not

made “the kind of lifestyle changes that [Paul was] hoping to see in order to safely

return her children to her.”

When asked if she believed that Mother knowingly placed the children in a

dangerous situation and knowingly put her children with a person who engaged in

conduct that might be dangerous to the children, Paul testified that she believed that

Mother did both things. Paul also believed that Mother abandoned the children when

she moved to El Paso and stopped visiting the children.

Paul testified that the Department was asking the jury to terminate Mother’s

parental rights to Eric and Mia because Mother “hasn’t shown an interest to have her

children returned.” Paul testified that in addition to missing virtual visits with the

children, Mother never asked Paul about the children, inquired about their well-

being, or asked for photographs of the children, and she also did not cooperate with

40 the Department’s efforts to visit her homes in Brazoria County and El Paso, which

is one of the first steps in the reunification process.4

According to Paul, termination of Mother’s parental rights to Eric and Mia

was in the children’s best interest because the children “deserve[d] stability and

someone that is going to be there to meet their needs daily and not having to worry

about being uprooted and moved place to place to place and just for someone to

generally care about, you know, their needs and what it takes to be a parent.”

When asked what more Mother could have done to get her children back, Paul

testified that Mother “could have been more cooperative with allowing the

Department to do those unannounced visits” to her home and, if she was not home,

Mother could have taken the initiative to contact the Department and schedule a

visit. Paul testified that Mother also failed to comply with the Department’s requests

for drug testing, and she did not make her visits with the children a priority.

According to Paul, Mother has not reached out to her or said that she wants her

children back since Mother moved to El Paso.

H. Mary

Mary is the children’s foster mother. Eric and Mia were placed with Mary

and her husband Greg in March 2023, but Eric was placed with a family friend and

4 Paul testified that the Department was asking the jury to terminate Steve’s parental rights to Eric and Mike’s parental rights to Mia.

41 Mia was returned to Mother’s care after a hearing in April 2023. Eric and Mia were

placed with Mary and Greg after Mother and Mike were arrested in May 2023, and

the children lived with Mary and Greg until trial in October 2024. Mary testified

Eric and Mia were healthy when they were placed in her home, and she believed that

the children’s needs had been met prior to coming into her care.

Mary testified that Eric, who was initially placed with her when he was

fifteen-months old, was almost three years old. According to Mary, Eric is an

energetic child with a lot of energy and a “big personality.” Eric loves dinosaurs

and he enjoys riding his scooter bike, playing at the park, and playing with his friends

at church. Mary testified that Eric gets excited when Mia wakes him up in the

morning, when he sees Mary and Greg coming home from work, and “food also

excites him.”

Eric attends daycare and he usually plays outside for an hour before eating

dinner, taking a bath, and going to bed. Mia is Eric’s favorite person, and he loves

her very much. Eric also knows and spends time every month with Mary’s and

Greg’s extended family members who live in Houston, and Eric regularly speaks to

Mary’s and Greg’s other family members, and he can recognize their voices on the

phone.

Eric is a “little skittish at first” when he is in a new or unfamiliar situation, but

“he usually warms up to people.” He seeks out Mary or Greg if he is a little scared.

42 According to Mary, Eric is “very caring” and empathetic and “he is always checking

on people.” He is “lots of fun” and “definitely brings the life and joy to any room

that he walks into.” Mary testified that Eric is very energetic, and he is “[a]lways

running around and playing with friends.” Eric is also “pretty good about listening

[the] majority of the time.”

According to Mary, Eric is physically healthy and meeting his milestones. He

is speaking in full sentences, and Mary and Greg generally understand what Eric is

saying. Mary testified that she and Greg generally refer to each other by their first

names when they are around the children and Eric calls her Mary or Mama. Eric

recently started play therapy, which he attends once a week. Mary testified that Paul

suggested they enroll Eric in play therapy after Eric started having some issues in

daycare. According to Mary, Eric is a “little bit of a biter,” but he is improving.

Mia was six weeks old when she was placed with Mary and Greg. Mary

testified that Mia, who was twenty months old at the time of trial, is “feisty,” “really

fun,” and has a “great personality.” Although she is “very independent” and

opinionated, Mia is shyer than Eric and it takes her time to warm up to new people.

When she is scared, Mia seeks out Mary for comfort.

Mary testified that Mia is “very independent” and an affectionate child who

loves giving hugs and kisses and has a “strong personality.” Mia also loves playing

outside, playing with Eric, reading books, and playing with her stuffed animals. She

43 gets excited when she sees Mary and Greg and she is excited to wake up Eric in the

morning. She attends daycare and she has the same daily routine as Eric. According

to Mary, Mia is in “kind of a defiant stage,” but she listens well for the most part.

Mia also enjoys spending time with Mary’s and Greg’s family members and she gets

excited when she talks to Mary’s mother on the phone. Mia is physically healthy,

she is meeting her milestones, she knows some words, and her pronunciation is

improving. She refers to Mary and Greg as Mama and Dada.

Mary testified that she and Greg had been married for seven and a half years

and they had lived for six years in a four-bedroom single-family home that is close

to a park and in a “quiet, family friendly neighborhood.” Mary testified that she has

never been arrested, incarcerated, used illegal drugs, fled in a stolen car with Eric

inside, or burglarized a building.

According to Mary, Greg is a good father who takes care of Eric and Mia,

“loves them, spends time with them.” Mary testified that she and Greg can have

biological children, and they decided to foster because they have “always had a heart

for kids in difficult situations” and they wanted to provide a safe place for those

children for “however long they needed it.” Mary testified that she believes children

should be reunited with their parents, and if that does not happen, the children should

be placed with family, when possible.

44 Mary testified that she and Greg fostered three children before Eric and Mia,

and all three children were reunited with family members. When Eric and Mia were

placed with Mary and Greg, Mary assumed Eric and Mia would be reunited with

their family, too. Mary testified that she and Greg are open to adopting a child who

needs a “place to be forever,” but the goal is always for a child to be reunited with

their family.

Mary testified that it is important for Eric and Mia to know their biological

families, and she never tried to keep the children from Mother. Mother has Mary’s

phone number and email address, and although Mary never expressly encouraged

Mother to contact her, Mary believes she had been “warm in all of [her] emails” to

Mother. When Mother lived in Brazoria County, Mary and Greg gave Mother

notebooks during her visits with the children that included photographs of Eric and

Mia and weekly updates on their general well-being, including their activities, and

medical visits. After Mother moved to El Paso, Mary sent Mother email messages

with photographs of the children and updates, including a May 2024 message

wishing Mother a happy Mother’s Day. Mother responded and thanked Mary,

expressed her appreciation, and wished Mary a happy Mother’s Day. That was the

only email message Mary received from Mother.

Mary never observed Mother interact with the children in person and the

children did not behave differently after their in-person visits with Mother. Eric did,

45 however, have a difficult day at daycare after one virtual visit. Mary testified that

the Zoom links Paul sent her always worked and although Mother initially

participated in weekly virtual visits with children, Mother stopped attending the

visits in July 2024.

When asked if she wanted Mother’s, Mike’s, and Steve’s parental rights

terminated, Mary said that she and Greg “want what is best for [Eric] and [Mia],

whatever that is.” Mary testified that Eric and Mia need a safe place to live, and the

children would do well in a long-term placement with her and Greg because Eric

and Mia had lived with them for most of their lives and they loved everything about

the children. Mary testified that she was not aware of any family members who

would be suitable placements for Eric and Mia and she and Greg would adopt the

children “if that is something that [the children] need.”

I. Faye Gordon

Faye Gordon is Eric’s and Mia’s court-appointed guardian ad litem. Gordon

testified that it was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interests for Mother’s parental rights to

be terminated “so that they would have an opportunity to find a safe, stable, loving

home.” She also testified that it was in Eric’s best interest for Steve’s parental rights

to be terminated and termination of Mike’s parental rights was in Mia’s best interest.

Gordon testified that she “believe[s] children deserve to be in a safe, stable

home, taken care of, provided love and affection” and Eric and Mia “deserve a safe,

46 stable, loving environment with consistency and people who would care about

them.” According to Gordon, a stable home is “a place where [the children] know

at the end of the day they’re coming home to the same residence; that they will have

a routine, generally; they are—know that they will have food and be clothed; that

they participate in activities . . . together as a family.” Gordon testified that Eric and

Mia had been in foster care for eighteen months, and she visited the children three

times at Mary’s and Greg’s home, which Gordon described as “safe, loving, and

stable.”

Gordon testified that she met with Mother when the case began in 2023, and

she observed Mother and the children together once before Mother moved to El Paso

in February 2024. According to Gordon, Mother “is a loving parent” and she was

“attentive during the time that she was visiting with the children.” Gordon testified

that Eric and Mia appeared to be bonded with Mother, and the children knew who

she was.

Gordon visited Mother’s apartment in Freeport in 2023, and she did not

observe anything in the apartment that made it unsafe. According to Gordon, it was

a “regular, nice apartment” and it appeared to be ready for the children to move in.

She testified that she understood when she visited the apartment that Mother had

completed her services, and she was in favor of returning the children to Mother’s

care. Mike was living with Mother in Freeport and Gordon noticed during her visit

47 that “it was very easy for him to become agitate[d].” According to Gordon, Mike

was anxious and “he would just kind of go off a little bit.” Gordon testified that the

Department did not want Mother and Mike to live together or Mother to allow Mike

to visit the children if they were in her care.

Gordon agreed that the Department’s goal is to reunite children with their

families, and it is better for a child to be returned to their parent or placed with a

family member as opposed to remaining in foster care, “when that’s possible.”

According to Gordon, the Department was willing to reunite Mother with Eric and

Mia after Mother moved to El Paso in February 2024, but Mother “missed some of

the steps that were necessary for the children to be returned.” Specifically, Mother

failed to regularly visit with the children and cooperate with the Department’s efforts

to visit her apartment. According to Gordon, the Department tried for three months

“before [Mother] would ever open the door.” Gordon testified that when the

courtesy caseworker in El Paso was able to visit Mother’s apartment in June 2024,

Mother did not “have anything for the kids” except beds.

Although Gordon did not believe that Mother posed a danger to Eric’s and

Mia’s emotional or physical development, she was concerned about Mother’s ability

to provide Eric and Mia with the stability they needed. Gordon testified that Mother

had not provided any evidence that she was employed, had regular income, or was

48 able to pay the rent for her current apartment. According to Gordon, Mother was

behind in her rent payments and was subject to eviction.

Although Gordon had spoken to the caseworker about Mother’s efforts to

work her services, Gordon never visited Mother in El Paso, spoke to Mother’s

landlord, or met Mother’s family members in El Paso. She admitted that because

she had not seen Mother’s apartment in El Paso, or spoken to Mother’s family

members in El Paso, she could not say whether Mother’s home was adequate or

whether her family members would be appropriate caretakers for the children.

Gordon testified that it was in the children’s best interests for Mother’s

parental rights to be terminated because it would give the children “an opportunity

to find a safe, stable, loving home” and the permanency they needed. She testified

that if Mother’s rights are not terminated, it would “delay permanency” for Eric and

Mia because the Department “would still be looking for someone to place the

children with.”

J. Decree of Termination

On November 25, 2024, the trial court signed a decree of termination

terminating Mother’s parental rights to Eric and Mia based on the court’s findings

that Mother committed the predicate acts under Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)

(D), (E), (N), and (O), and that termination of Mother’s rights was in Eric’s and

49 Mia’s best interest. The court also appointed the Department as Eric’s and Mia’s

sole managing conservator.5 This appeal followed.

Termination of Mother’s Parental Rights to Eric and Mia

Mother argues there is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting

the jury’s findings that (1) she committed the predicate acts under Family Code

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O), and (2) termination of her parental

rights was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest.

Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) authorize the termination of a parent’s

rights to a child when the parent has endangered the child’s physical or emotional

well-being. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D) & (E). Under Section

161.001(b)(1)(N), a parent’s rights to a child may be terminated if the parent has

constructively abandoned the child who has been in the Department’s

conservatorship for at least six months, the Department made reasonable efforts to

return the child to the parent, the parent did not regularly visit or maintain significant

contact with the child, and the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the

child with a safe environment. Id. § 161.001(b)(1)(N). Under Section

161.001(b)(1)(O), a parent’s rights to a child may be terminated if the parent “failed

to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the

5 The decree of termination also terminated Steve’s parental rights to Eric and Mike’s parental rights to Mia, but neither Steve nor Mike appealed from the decree.

50 actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the

permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and

Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child’s removal

from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child.” Id.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(O).

A. Standard of Review

A parent’s rights to the “companionship, care, custody, and management” of

his or her child is a constitutional interest “far more precious than any property

right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59 (1982) (quoting Lassiter v. Dep’t

of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)); see In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex.

2003). The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that “the interest of [a]

parent[ ] in the care, custody, and control of [her] children . . . is perhaps the oldest

of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e] Court.” Troxel v. Granville,

530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court has concluded that

“[t]his natural parental right” is “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)

(internal quotations omitted); see also In re R.J.G., 681 S.W.3d 370, 373 (Tex. 2023)

(“Both this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have long recognized

the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and

control of their children.”). Consequently, we strictly scrutinize termination

51 proceedings and strictly construe the involuntary termination statutes in favor of the

parent. Holick, 685 S.W.2d at 20.

A court may terminate the parent-child relationship under Section 161.001 if

the Department establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the parent has

engaged in one or more of the enumerated predicate acts or omissions under Section

161.001(b), and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM.

CODE § 161.001(b). “Both elements must be established, and termination may not

be based solely on the best interest of the children as determined by the trier of fact.”

In re M.A.J., 612 S.W.3d 398, 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet

denied). Only one predicate finding under Section 161.001(b)(1) “is necessary to

support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in

the child’s best interest.” In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003).

Clear and convincing evidence is “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. When

reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a case involving termination of

parental rights, we determine whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could

reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that there existed grounds for termination

under Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination was in the best interest of the child.

See id. § 161.001(b)(1), (2); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). We look

52 at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a

reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding

was true. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018) (citing In re J.F.C., 96

S.W.3d at 266); see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344–45 (Tex. 2009). We

assume the “factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable

factfinder could do so.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266; see also In re A.C., 560

S.W.3d at 630–31. We must disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could

have disbelieved or found not to be credible. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. But

this does not mean we must disregard all evidence that does not support the finding.

Id. Because of the heightened standard in termination cases, we must also be

mindful of any undisputed evidence contrary to the finding and consider that

evidence in our analysis. Id. If we determine that no reasonable trier of fact could

form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is true, we must

hold the evidence to be legally insufficient and render judgment in favor of the

parent. Id.

When conducting a factual sufficiency review in a termination case, we must

consider the entire record. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at

266. Unlike in a legal sufficiency review, when assessing the factual sufficiency of

the evidence, we cannot disregard disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder

could not have credited in favor of the finding. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266; see

53 also In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 630 (“The distinction between legal and factual

sufficiency lies in the extent to which disputed evidence contrary to a finding may

be considered.”). “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.” In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631 (citing In re

J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266).

Under both legal and factual sufficiency standards, the factfinder is the sole

arbiter of a witness’ credibility and demeanor and the weight of the evidence. In re

J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346; see In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 279 n.50 (Tex. 2024)

(“Reviewing courts . . . must defer to the factfinder’s judgment as to the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony, including reasonable and

logical inferences from the evidence.”).

B. Endangerment Findings Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)

In her first and second issues, Mother argues there is legally and factually

insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding under Section

161.001(b)(1)(D) that she endangered Eric and Mia by knowingly placing or

knowingly allowing the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which

endangered their physical or emotional well-being, or under Section

161.001(b)(1)(E) that she endangered Eric and Mia by engaging in conduct or

54 knowingly placing the children with persons who engaged in conduct which

endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being. See TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D) & (E).

1. Applicable Law

Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) authorize the termination of a parent’s

rights to their child when the parent has endangered the child’s physical or emotional

well-being. The term “endanger,” as used in Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E),

encompasses a broad “array of conduct that ‘expose[s a child] to loss or injury’ or

‘jeopardize[s]’ the child.” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 277 (quoting Tex. Dep’t of

Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987)); see also In re S.R., 452

S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (stating

parent’s conduct which subjects child to life of uncertainty and instability endangers

child’s physical and emotional well-being). “[E]ndangering conduct is not limited

to actions directed towards the child.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345; see also In

re T.G.R.-M., 404 S.W.3d 7, 13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). The

danger to the child may be inferred from parental misconduct, even if the conduct is

not directed at the child and the child suffered no actual injury. See Boyd, 727

S.W.2d at 533 (stating although endanger means “more than a threat of metaphysical

injury or the possible ill effects,” “it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at

the child or that the child actually suffers injury”). A parent’s use of illegal drugs

55 constitutes endangering conduct because “it exposes the child to the possibility that

the parent may be impaired or imprisoned.” Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family &

Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet.

denied); see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345.

Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), a parent’s rights may be terminated if clear

and convincing evidence establishes 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

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D). This subsection concerns the child’s living environment, rather

than the parent’s conduct, although parental conduct may produce an endangering

environment. See Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); see also In re A.J.A., No. 01-21-00299-CV, 2021 WL

5702183, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021, pet. denied) (mem.

op.). Thus, when seeking termination under Subsection (D), the Department must

establish that the child’s living conditions “pose a real threat of injury or harm to the

child.” In re N.R., 101 S.W.3d 771, 776 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). The

child’s environment refers to the acceptability of the child’s living conditions as well

as the conduct of parents or others in the home. In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 360.

“Conditions or surroundings” establishing endangerment include “[i]nappropriate,

abusive, or unlawful conduct by persons who live in the child’s home or with whom

56 the child is compelled to associate on a regular basis.” In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d

494, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).

A parent knowingly places or allows a child to remain in an endangering

environment when the parent is aware of the potential danger but disregards it. Id.

“A parent does not need to know for certain that the child is in an endangering

environment—awareness of a potential for danger is sufficient.” See In re I.N.D.,

No. 04-20-00121-CV, 2020 WL 2441375, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13,

2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing In re R.S.-T., 522 S.W.3d 92, 109 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2017, no pet.)); see also In re B.M.S., 581 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.) (“A child is endangered when the environment creates

a potential for danger that the parent is aware of but disregards.”). A parent’s rights

may be terminated under Subsection D 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.).

A parent’s rights may also be terminated under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) if

clear and convincing evidence establishes the parent “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.” TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.001(b)(1)(E). Unlike Subsection (D), termination under Subsection (E)

focuses on the parent’s conduct and requires “more than a single act or omission; a

voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent is required.” In

57 re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); see also

Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 723. Subsection 161.001(1)(E) asks whether “the

endangerment of the child’s physical well-being was the direct result of the parent’s

conduct, including acts, omissions, or failures to act.” In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d at

125. Thus, the relevant inquiry under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) is whether there is

evidence the parent engaged in a course of conduct that endangered the child’s

physical or emotional well-being. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 723.

2. Analysis – Section 161.001(b)(1)(D)

Mother argues there is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting

the jury’s finding she knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Eric and Mia to

remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional

well-being” because there is no evidence that her decision to remain in the house

with Eric during the two-hour police standoff on December 14, 2022 “created a

dangerous environment.” According to Mother, the evidence clearly establishes that

Mike alone created the dangerous situation inside the home. She also argues that

the Department failed to prove that she knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Eric

and Mia to remain in an endangering situation because there is no evidence that she

was aware at that time that Eric and Mia were in danger, and there is no evidence

that Eric’s and Mia’s living condition before and after the police standoff endangered

their physical or emotional well-being.

58 Every witness who testified at trial, including Mother, testified that the

conditions inside Laura’s home on December 14, 2022 were dangerous, and the

undisputed evidence supports their testimony. The record reflects that the incident

began when Laura tried to take one-year-old Eric away from Mike as Mike was

trying to put the child down for a nap. According to Mother, the argument escalated

when Laura tapped Mike on the shoulder several times. Mike, who claims that Laura

pushed him and caused him to strike his heel on something, became enraged and

yelled and screamed at Laura. Although Mother denied that the argument became

physical, the situation was concerning enough that both Mother and Laura called 9-

1-1. Mother told Dr. Stadler that she called the police because “in the past ‘we’d

call the police and they’d deescalate the situation.’”

The undisputed evidence reflects that Mike was “tripping and going crazy”

and still “yelling and screaming” at Laura when the police first approached the home.

Mike, who Mother knew had “a knife in his backpack,” threatened to kill himself

and the police if they entered the house, and he told the first officer who tried to calm

him down that if the officer came inside, the officer would have to kill Mike.

According to Mother, “the police had their hands on their holsters already” when

they arrived and the “fire department, SWAT” team, and McCain, the mental health

officer, were also dispatched to the scene. It is undisputed that the officers

surrounded the outside of the home with their guns drawn and Mother was aware of

59 this fact because she told Jones that “there were police surrounding the house, their

guns were drawn, they were on their knees in the backyard, front yard, and more

kept coming.”

When McCain first approached Mike, Mike was standing in the front doorway

of the house holding “a large kitchen knife in his right hand” and “threatening to kill

any police officer’s that stepped foot inside” the house. He was making statements

such as, “you’re gonna have to kill me.” Mike, who was holding a Molotov cocktail,

told McCain that he was “going to blow it up” if anyone came inside and if the

officers standing outside the house did not move back, “this bitch is gonna burn.”

According to McCain, Mike was in a “state of anger due to possible PTSD.”

When asked if Mike ever threatened Eric or Mother, McCain testified, “Not

directly, but I believe that in his statement that ‘I’ll burn the house down with

everybody in it’ is an indirect threat.” McCain asked Mike if Mother and Eric could

leave, and Mike told McCain that Mother was “not going anywhere,” and neither

was Eric. McCain testified that he understood Mike’s statement as another indirect

threat to Mother. McCain testified that “everything [Mike] said was indirect” and

although Mike “never a direct statement of harm towards” Mother, “it was definitely

a broad spectrum saying that he was going to.”

Mother, who was seven months pregnant with Mia, and Eric remained in the

home with Mike while the entire incident transpired. According to Mother, she

60 stayed with Mike because she was trying to calm him down and she was afraid that

the police would harm him, and she had no intention of leaving him. Mother

believed that Eric was not in physical danger while he was with Mike because Eric

was with her and Mike had never harmed or been physically violent towards Eric.

Mother testified that she did not leave after Mike threatened to kill the police because

Mike “didn’t direct that threat towards me. He directed it towards the police.” When

asked if she thought the Mike “holding a Molotov cocktail and . . . threatening a fire

was a danger to [Eric,]” Mother testified that, at the time, she did not believe Eric

was in danger and she was never concerned that Mike would physically harm her or

Eric. At trial, Mother testified that watching McCain’s body camera video gave her

a new perspective on what transpired inside Laura’s home on December 14, 2022,

which she described as a “hostage situation” that was “actually very, very

dangerous.” Mother, however, did not feel like she and Eric were being held hostage

at the time, and she believed she could have left house with Eric at any time. Mike

also informed a Department investigator that he had told Mother she could leave the

house during the standoff. McCain testified that “it was 100 percent dangerous” for

Mother and Eric to be in the house with Mike, but Mother never appeared to be

scared or in distress and she was talking on her phone and making jokes towards the

end of the standoff.

61 Mike’s violent outbursts while armed with a large kitchen knife and Molotov

cocktail and threats to kill the police and blow up the house while Mother and Eric

were present undeniably posed a threat of harm or injury to Mother and the children,

even if Mother and the children were not harmed or directly threatened. See Boyd,

727 S.W.2d at 533 (stating danger to child may be inferred from parental misconduct

even if conduct is not directed at child and child suffered no actual injury); In re

N.R., 101 S.W.3d at 776 (stating Subsection (D) requires evidence child was placed

in or remained in circumstances that “pose[d] a real threat of injury or harm to the

child”).

Regardless of who created the circumstances inside the home on December

14, 2022, it is undisputed that Mother, who believed that she could leave with Eric

at any time, chose to remain inside the home with Eric to protect Mike. Mother does

not dispute that she was aware of the dangerous circumstances inside and outside

the home during the two-hour standoff on December 14, 2022. Rather, Mother

argues that she was unaware at the time that she and the children were in danger

because she did not believe Mike would hurt her or Eric and Mike never threatened

her. According to Mother, there is no evidence that she knowingly placed or

knowingly allowed Eric and Mia to remain in an endangering situation because she

did not appreciate the seriousness of the circumstances inside the home or the peril

that she and children were in until later.

62 The jury, as the sole arbiter of witness credibility, was not obligated to believe

Mother’s testimony that she did not know she and Eric were in danger while they

were with Mike during the police standoff on December 14, 2022, or credit Stadler’s

testimony that she did not get the impression when she spoke to Mother in June 2023

that Mother would knowingly place Eric and Mia in danger. See In re J.O.A., 283

S.W.3d at 346 (stating that factfinder, not appellate court, is sole arbiter of witness’

credibility). Furthermore, a “parent does not need to know for certain that the child

is in an endangering environment—awareness of a potential for danger is sufficient.”

In re I.N.D., 2020 WL 2441375, at *3.

Mother argues that she was unable to appreciate the danger to her and Eric at

the time because her impulse control issues and ADHD “affected her ability to

fathom the gravity of a given situation.” However, when asked if Mother was

potentially unable to appreciate the seriousness of certain situations, Dr. Stadler

testified that Mother was intelligent, acted like an adult and had “reasonable insight”

The jury reasonably could have inferred from the evidence that Mother had

the ability to recognize dangerous situations and that when confronted with the

objectively dangerous circumstances that existed inside the house with Mike during

the two-hour standoff, Mother recognized the potential danger posed to her and Eric

by remaining inside the home, yet chose to disregard the danger because she wanted

63 to stay to protect Mike. See In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d at 502 (stating parent

knowingly places or allows child to remain in endangering environment when parent

is aware of potential danger but disregards it); see also In re B.M.S., 581 S.W.3d at

917 (“A child is endangered when the environment creates a potential for danger

that the parent is aware of but disregards.”).

Mother argues she did not knowingly endanger herself or Eric by staying in

the house to calm Mike down because McCain, who utilized her presence in the

home to help him deescalate the situation, “allowed [Mother] to stay inside as she

was helping calm [Mike].” But McCain did not ask Mother for help and there is no

indication that McCain wanted Mother and Eric to stay in the house. Rather, McCain

testified that he believed Mother and Eric were Mike’s hostages, and he tried to

convince Mike to let Mother and Eric leave the house.

The two-hour standoff ended when McCain transported Mike to a psychiatric

hospital. The record reflects that Mother was aware of Mike’s anger issues and

violent tendencies prior to the standoff because Mother had seen Mike punch Steve

and point a gun at Shaw and Shaw’s husband. Mother had also told Steve that Mike

“gets angry” and “had put his hands on her.” Despite being aware of Mike’s mental

health and anger issues and his propensity for violence, Mother and Eric continued

living with Mike even after he was released from the psychiatric hospital on

December 17, 2022. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston

64 [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“A parent’s abusive or violent conduct can produce a

home environment that endangers a child’s well-being [and d]omestic violence,

want of self control, and propensity for violence may be considered as evidence of

endangerment.”).

Mother, Eric, Mike, and Mia, who was born in February 2023, lived together

in Laura’s home until Mike was arrested in March 2023 for threatening to kill Laura.

Mike admitted to the Department that he was no longer seeking treatment for his

mental health issues. Mendoza met with Mother and Laura after she learned of

Mike’s arrest, and they signed a family agreement plan with the Department in which

Laura agreed that she “would not allow [Mike] back in the home due to the concerns

regarding his mental health and . . . his arrest for terroristic threat. After Laura

kicked Mother and the children out of the house in March 2023, Mother rented an

apartment and Mother allowed Mike to move into the apartment after he was

released from jail. Mike lived in the apartment with Mother and Mia. Mother moved

to a second apartment, where she and Mia continued to live with Mike until Mother

and Mike were arrested in May 2023 and charged with felony robbery. According

to Mother, Mendoza told her multiple times that she needed to break up with Mike

before she and Mike were arrested in May and the Department removed Eric and

Mia from her care.

65 This evidence indicates that despite Mike’s untreated mental health issues,

recent violent, criminal behavior, and the Department’s concerns about the

children’s safety when they were around Mike, Mother and Mia continued living

with Mike. See id.; In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 363 (stating “[u]ntreated mental illness

can expose a child to endangerment . . . and is a factor the court may consider”).

Although Mother denied that Mike punched Steve, pointed a gun at Shaw and her

husband, and was physically violent towards her, it was the jury’s province as the

sole factfinder to disbelieve Mother’s testimony on this point. See In re J.O.A., 283

S.W.3d at 346 (stating trial court as factfinder is sole arbiter of witness’ credibility

and demeanor).

Regardless of the children’s living conditions before the standoff, the fact that

Mother knowingly placed or allowed Eric and Mia to remain in endangering

circumstances on December 14, 2022 and afterwards by continuing to live with Mike

is sufficient to support termination of Mother’s parental rights to the children under

Subsection (D). See In re L.E.S., 471 S.W.3d at 925 (stating parent’s rights may be

terminated under Subsection D based on single act or omission by parent).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to jury’s finding, we

conclude the jury could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother

knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Eric and Mia to remain in conditions or

66 surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional well-being. TEX. FAM.

CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

Further, in view of the entire record, we conclude that the disputed evidence

is not so significant as to prevent the jury from forming a firm belief or conviction

that Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Eric and Mia to remain in

conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional

well-being. TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

Because there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the jury’s

findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), it is not necessary for us to decide whether

there was also sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s findings that Mother

committed the predicate acts under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), and (O). See In

re A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 362 (stating only one predicate finding under Section

161.001(b)(1) is necessary to support decree of termination when there is also

finding that termination is in child’s best interest).

We overrule Mother’s first, second, third, and fourth issues.

C. Best Interest

In her fifth issue, Mother argues there is legally and factually insufficient

evidence supporting the jury’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in

Eric’s and Mia’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(2).

67 1. Applicable Law

The purpose of the State’s intervention in the parent-child relationship is to

protect the best interests of the children, not to punish parents for their conduct. See

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 361. There is a strong presumption that the best interest

of a child is served by keeping the child with a parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112,

116 (Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2012, no pet.). But there is also a presumption that the “prompt and permanent

placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child’s best

interest.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a); see also In re B.J.C., 495 S.W.3d 29, 39

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (noting child’s need for

permanence through establishment of stable, permanent home is paramount

consideration in best-interest determination).

To determine whether parental termination is in a child’s best interest, courts

may consider the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the

present and future physical and emotional needs of the child; (3) the present and

future emotional and physical danger to the child; (4) the parental abilities of the

persons seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist those persons seeking

custody in promoting the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the

individuals or agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed

placement; (8) acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate the existing parent-

68 child relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or

omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors

are not exhaustive, and evidence is not required on every factor to support a finding

that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Id.; In re D.R.A.,

374 S.W.3d at 533. Factfinders may consider circumstantial evidence, subjective

factors, and the totality of the evidence as well as direct evidence when conducting

a best-interest analysis. See In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2013, pet. denied).

We may also consider the statutory factors under Texas Family Code Section

263.307, including (1) the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities;

(2) 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; (3) 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; (4) the willingness and

ability of the child’s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes

within a reasonable period of time; (5) 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 (6) whether an adequate social support

69 system consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the child. TEX.

FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116.

A parent’s past conduct is probative of his future conduct when evaluating the

child’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2013, no pet.); see also Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 724. A factfinder may also

infer that past conduct endangering the well-being of a child may recur in the future

if the child is returned to the parent when assessing the best interest of the child. See

In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.).

Evidence supporting termination under one of the predicate grounds listed in

Section 161.001(b)(1) may also be considered in support of a finding that

termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex.

2002) (holding same evidence may be probative of both Section 161.001(b)(1)

grounds and best interest).

2. Analysis

Mother argues it was not in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest to terminate her

parental rights because she was a loving mother who maintained regular visits with

the children while she lived in Brazoria County, and the children are bonded with

her. She argues she completed all the required services necessary for her to be

reunited with Eric and Mia and she enrolled in an intensive outpatient drug program

after she tested positive for marijuana in March 2024, even though she was not

70 required to do so. According to Mother, there is no evidence she knowingly

endangered Eric and Mia, and by the time of trial, she had obtained a safe and stable

home for the children and was financially stable.

Multiple factors support the jury’s finding that termination of Mother’s

parental rights was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest, the first of which is Mother’s

endangering conduct. In addition to supporting the jury’s finding under Subsection

(D) that Mother endangered Eric and Mia, the evidence that Mother knowingly

placed or allowed Eric and Mia to remain in an endangering environment by staying

in the house with Eric during the police standoff also supports the jury’s best interest

finding. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (holding same evidence may be probative

of both Section 161.001(b)(1) grounds and best interest).

There is also evidence that Mother engaged in other endangering conduct.

Although Mother testified that she had never seen Mike have a mental episode before

the police standoff on December 14, 2022, there is evidence that Mother and Eric

were present when Mike assaulted Steve and when Mike pointed a gun at Shaw and

Shaw’s husband. Jones also testified that Mother had told Steve before December

14, 2022 that Mike “gets angry” and “had put his hands on her.” There is thus some

evidence that, prior to December 14, 2022, Mother knew that Mike had violent

tendencies and anger issues, and that Mike had physically assaulted her and Steve.

See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 845 (“A parent’s abusive or violent conduct can

71 produce a home environment that endangers a child’s well-being.”). Although

Mother denied that Mike had ever been violent towards her, punched Steve, or

pointed a gun at Shaw and Shaw’s husband, the jury, as the sole arbiter of witness

credibility, was entitled to disbelieve Mother’s testimony on this point. See In re

J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (recognizing factfinder, not appellate court, as sole arbiter

of witness’ credibility and demeanor).

Mother testified that she continued to live with Mike after he was discharged

from the psychiatric hospital because she was pregnant with Mike’s daughter, Mia,

and Mike was working and they had plans to get their own apartment and start a

family. Mother, who was not working at the time, testified that she was financially

dependent on Mike. Mother and Mia lived with Mike in April and May 2023, even

after Mike had been arrested for threatening to kill Laura, Mike had admitted in

March 2023 that he was no longer seeking treatment for his mental health issues,

and Mendoza had indirectly told Mother that she needed to break up with Mike. The

record thus reflects that despite knowing about Mike’s propensity for violence and

awareness of the Department’s concerns about the children’s well-being when they

are around Mike, Mother chose to continue living with Mike, creating the possibility

that the children would be exposed to another of Mike’s violent episodes. See In re

J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 845 (“Domestic violence, want of self control, and propensity

for violence may be considered as evidence of endangerment.”); see also In re S.G.,

72 No. 02-14-00245-CV, 2015 WL 392772, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 29,

2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating “abusive or violent conduct by a parent may

produce an environment that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-

being”).

Mother told Stadler that she and Mike separated in June 2023 because Mike

“wasn’t providing for her . . . financially or providing for the child financially.”

Although she denied wanting to reconcile with Mike, Mother told Stadler that she

and Mike were “working on it slowly” and she did not “plan on breaking up with

him.” Mother and Mike reconciled thereafter and the lived together until they broke

up again in November 2023. Mother was evicted from her apartment in January

2024 because Mike was no longer supporting her financially and she could not afford

to pay the rent on her own. Mike told Paul in November 2023 that Mother used him

for his money and “[o]nce he didn’t have money anymore, she would kick him out.”

According to Gordon, Mother was behind on her rent and subject to eviction from

her apartment in El Paso at the time of trial.

Although Mother denied at trial that she was in a relationship with Mike,

wanted to reconcile with him, or was behind in her rent, it was the jury’s province

to disbelieve Mother’s testimony on this issue. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346

(stating trial court as factfinder is sole arbiter of witness’ credibility and demeanor);

In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 279 n.50 (stating courts defer to factfinder’s findings

73 regarding credibility of witnesses and weight to give their testimony, “including

reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence”). The jury could also infer

from this evidence, including Mike’s and Mother’s relationship history and Mother’s

financial troubles at the time of trial that Mother would reconcile with Mike in the

future. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346; In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 279 n.50;

see also In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d at 684 (stating parent’s past conduct is probative

of his future conduct when evaluating child’s best interest); In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d

732, 741 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (stating parent’s past

endangering conduct supports inference that past conduct may recur and further

jeopardize child’s present or future physical or emotional well-being).

The jury could also infer from Mother’s failure to protect Eric and Mia from

Mike that she would not be able to protect the children in the future if they were

returned to her care. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d at 684; In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d

at 741. Mother’s past endangering conduct is also an indication of her parenting

abilities. See In re H.M.O.L., No. 01-17-00775-CV, 2018 WL 1659981, at *18 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 6, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing In re J.S.G.,

No. 14–08–00754–CV, 2009 WL 1311986, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

May 7, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (identifying parental

abilities as best interest factor).

74 Eric’s and Mia’s young ages also support the trial court’s finding that

termination of Mother’s rights was in the children’s best interest because they

require constant supervision by an adult who can meet their physical and emotion

needs and protect them from harm. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(1)

(identifying child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities as best interest

factors); In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d 258, 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017,

pet. denied) (noting that young age of child—fourteen months at time of trial—

weighed in favor of trial court’s finding that termination was in child’s best interest);

see also In re A.L.B., No. 01-17-00547-CV, 2017 WL 6519969, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (stating children’s young ages—

five and six years old—rendered them vulnerable if left with parent unable or

unwilling to protect them or attend to their needs).

Another factor that supports the jury’s best interest finding is Mother’s failure

to maintain stable housing and employment throughout the pendency of the case.

See In re B.J.C., 495 S.W.3d at 39 (noting that child’s need for permanence through

establishment of stable, permanent home is paramount consideration in best-interest

determination). Mother testified that she had lived at nine different addresses since

Eric was born in December 2021, and six or seven of those residences occurred after

Eric and Mia were initially removed from her care in March 2023. The Department

had expressed concerns about Mother’s ability to provide Eric and Mia with a safe,

75 and stable home from the time the children were taken into care because Mother

continued to live with Mike even though he had untreated mental health problems,

a history of violence, and he was serving deferred adjudication after he pleaded

guilty to threatening to kill his mother, Laura, in March 2023, and Mother did not

cooperate with the Department’s efforts to visit her home to evaluate the home’s

safeness and stability, as required by Mother’s family service plan. See In re C.H.,

89 S.W.3d at 28 (stating evidence supporting trial court’s finding that mother failed

to complete her family service plan also supported finding that termination is in

child’s best interest).

After Mother and Mike broke up in November 2023 and Mike stopped

supporting Mother financially, Mother was unable to pay the rent for the apartment

on Yaupon Street in Freeport and she was evicted in January 2024. Mother moved

to El Paso in February 2024, and in March 2024, Mother leased an apartment on

Francis Street, and she provided the Department with a copy of her lease. Mother

testified that she moved into the apartment in March, and she was living there as of

trial in October 2024. Although Mother testified that she was current on her rent,

Gordon testified that Mother had fallen behind in her rent payments and she was

subject to eviction. When asked if the fact that Mother had maintained the same

address for seven months was evidence of stability, Paul testified that she could not

verify that Mother “consistently lived at that address for seven months.” Evidence

76 of Mother’s failure to maintain stable housing throughout the pendency of the case

supports the jury’s best interest finding. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (recognizing

stability of home and ability to provide for child’s current and future physical and

emotional needs as best-interest factors); In re A.J.–A., No. 14–16–00070–CV, 2016

WL 1660858, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (“Lack of stability, including a stable home, supports a finding that the parent

is unable to provide for a child’s emotional and physical needs.”).

As the sole factfinder, it was in the jury’s province to credit Gordon’s

testimony that testified that Mother was behind on her rent and was subject to

eviction from her apartment on Francis Street in El Paso and disbelieve Mother’s

testimony on this point. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (stating trial court as

factfinder is sole arbiter of witness’ credibility and demeanor). Similarly, it was in

the jury’s province to disbelieve Mother’s testimony that she was able to support

herself and the children financially, including affording to provide them with a safe

place to live, because she testified that she had been financially dependent upon

Mike, she was evicted from the apartment on Yaupon Street after Mike moved out

and stopped supporting her financially, and Gordon testified that Mother was behind

on her rent and was subject to eviction from her apartment on Francis Street in El

77 Paso.6 See id. The jury could also reasonably infer from this evidence that Mother

would be unable to meet the children’s present and future need for safe, stable

housing. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d at 684 (stating parent’s past conduct is

probative of his future conduct when evaluating child’s best interest); In re R.R.A.,

687 S.W.3d at 279 n.50 (stating courts defer to factfinder’s findings regarding

credibility of witnesses and weight to give their testimony, “including reasonable

and logical inferences from the evidence”).

The record also reflects that Mother failed to maintain stable employment

during the pendency of the case. Mother reported holding eight different jobs since

Eric and Mia were taken into the Department’s care, most of which were in the food

service industry and for food and grocery delivery companies. She testified she held

five of those jobs after she moved to El Paso in February 2024, including working

as a cashier at a Valero gas station for six months. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d at 367

(considering parent’s inability to maintain stable employment in determining

6 It is also notable that as it concerns Mother’s relatives in El Paso who provided her some financial assistance during the pendency of this case, the Department determined that neither Shaw nor Mother’s great-grandmother, Duarte, were suitable placements for the children because Shaw “moved a lot and she even stayed in hotels and that she also had CPS history” and Duarte was deaf and “was not physically able to care for the children.” Duarte also refused to allow a Department caseworker to enter her home when Mother was staying there. There is no evidence that anyone from the Department contacted any of Mother’s other relatives in El Paso, much less assessed the appropriateness of their homes for the children. There is thus no evidence that Mother had suitable alternative living arrangements for Eric and Mia should Mother be evicted from her apartment.

78 whether termination is in child’s best interest); see also In re K.J.G., No. 04-19-

00102-CV, 2019 WL 3937278, at *7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (stating parent’s failure to obtain and maintain stable housing

and employment through eighteen-month pendency of case subjected her children

to life of uncertainty and instability, endangering their physical and emotional well-

being).

Mother also failed to provide the Department with verifiable proof of her

employment, such as pay stubs, as required by her service plan. Paul testified that

she had asked Mother to provide proof of employment throughout the case, but Paul

received only one pay stub from a McDonald’s restaurant that Mother worked at in

Brazoria County and Mother did not provide any proof of income after she moved

to El Paso. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (stating evidence supporting trial court’s

finding that mother failed to complete her family service plan also supported finding

that termination is in child’s best interest). Paul had also called the McDonald’s to

confirm Mother’s employment, but she was told Mother had been fired. Mother

testified that she was working at a Mexican restaurant earning cash. Paul testified

that she told Mother she could provide a letter from her employer verifying her

employment and earnings, but Mother never provided the letter. Paul therefore did

not have proof of Mother’s employment status.

79 The record also reflects that Mother tested positive for marijuana on

December 21, 2023, March 4, 2024, and May 21, 2024, and she failed to attend at

least six drug screenings between December 2023 and September 2024, suggesting

that Mother continued to use illegal drugs. See In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d at 269

(refusal to give hair sample permitted court to infer father refused testing because it

would be positive); In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d 874, 885 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (holding factfinder could infer that parent’s failure to submit to

court-ordered drug testing indicated parent was avoiding testing because they were

using narcotics). Mother’s use of an illegal substance while the case has been

pending, despite knowing that maintaining sobriety was one of the requirements for

reunification, also supports the jury’s best interest finding. See In re A.M., 495

S.W.3d 573, 580 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“[A] parent’s

decision to engage in illegal drug use during the pendency of a termination suit,

when the parent is at risk of losing a child, may support a finding that the parent

engaged in conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.”);

see also In re Z.J.B., No. 14-18-00759-CV, 2019 WL 347474, at *5, *7 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (stating parent’s single

positive drug screen and his failure to submit to three additional drug screenings

suggested continued illegal drug use by him and weighed in favor of trial court’s

best interest finding).

80 The record also reflects that Mother was arrested for felony robbery on May

6, 2023 while Mia was in her care. See In re V.V., 349 S.W.3d 548, 554 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (stating criminal activity that exposes parent

to incarceration is conduct that endangers child’s physical and emotional well-

being); see also In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet.

denied) (“As a general rule, conduct that subjects a child to a life of uncertainty and

instability endangers the physical and emotional well-being of [the] child.”). The

grand jury no billed the charge in July 2024. Nevertheless, as a result of her arrest,

Mother spent four days in jail and Mia was removed from Mother’s care and placed

with Mary and Greg. See In re T.G.R.-M., 404 S.W.3d at 15 (concluding that

although criminal charges were ultimately dismissed, charges supported termination

of parent’s rights because each time mother was jailed, she was absent from child’s

life and unable to provide for child’s physical and emotional needs during that time).

Evidence of Mother’s failure to satisfy the requirements of her family service

plan also supports the jury’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in

Eric’s and Mia’s best interest. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (stating evidence

supporting trial court’s finding that parent failed to complete family service plan also

supported finding of termination of parent’s rights in child’s best interest). While

the record reflects that Mother completed many of her family service plan’s

requirements, such as participating in individual therapy, completing a domestic

81 violence assessment, attending a parent collaboration group meeting, participating

in a psychological evaluation, and participating in parenting classes, the evidence

also reflects she failed to comply with other requirements including “maintain[ing]

a safe and stable home environment that is free from safety and hazardous conditions

[and is] drug and alcohol free,” maintaining verifiable employment or other source

of income and providing the Department with supporting documentation,

“maintain[ing] sobriety by submitting to random drug testing,” and attending all

visits with the children. See id.; see also TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(10)

(identifying parent’s willingness and ability to seek out, accept, and complete

counseling services as best interest factor).

Based on their observations of Mother’s interactions with Eric and Mia during

in-person visits, Gordon and Paul testified that Mother appeared to be bonded with

Eric and Mia, and Gordon described Mother as a loving parent. Stadler testified that

Mother showed an interest in Eric’s and Mia’s lives and nothing about their

relationship seemed abnormal, and there was evidence that Mother’s interactions

with the children were appropriate. The record, however, reflects that Eric was

twenty-six months old and Mia was one year old in February 2024, which is the last

time Mother saw them in person. Mother’s last virtual visit with the children was in

July 2024, three months before trial. Paul testified that although Eric and Mia

appeared to recognize her because she visited with them regularly, she “wouldn’t

82 say they recognized” Mother. Although Stadler testified that Mother showed an

interest in Eric’s and Mia’s lives when she spoke to Mother in June 2023, Paul

testified that Mother never asked her about the children’s well-being and effectively

abandoned the children after she moved to El Paso in February 2024. It was the

jury’s province to credit Paul’s testimony and disbelieve any testimony to the

contrary. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (stating trial court as factfinder is sole

arbiter of witness’ credibility and demeanor). Mother’s failure to contact the

children for three months before trial also supports the jury’s best interest finding.

See In re J.G., No. 02-21-00257-CV, 2022 WL 187983, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Jan. 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[A] trial court may consider in its analysis

a parent’s failure to visit, which can endanger the child’s emotional well-being.”).

Mother argues that while she may have struggled early on in the case to

achieve stability, by the time of trial she had “a stable home, employment sufficient

to support her children, and a car and driver’s license to transport the children” and

had otherwise “obtained everything she needed to provide her children with a safe

and stable home.” She also planned to get her GED and attend college with the goal

of becoming an MRI technician. While evidence that a parent has improved their

circumstances weighs against a best interest finding, such improvements do not

conclusively negate past endangering behavior. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346

(stating “[w]hile recent improvements made by [the parent] are significant, evidence

83 of improved conduct, especially of short-duration, does not conclusively negate the

probative value” of past behavior); In re P.R.W., 493 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016, no pet.) (stating “even strong evidence of

improvement cannot conclusively negate past history”); Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at732

(“Although evidence shows [the mother] has made some recent improvements to her

past situation, those improvements cannot absolve her of her long history of

irresponsible choices.”). And as set forth above, there is significant evidence

establishing Mother failed to establish she has a stable, long-term home or

employment.

By all accounts, Eric’s and Mia’s foster parents Mary and Greg have provided

Eric and Mia with a loving, safe, stable, nurturing, and drug-free home environment

and both children are thriving in their care, thus demonstrating that Mary and Greg

are able to meet Eric’s and Mia’s present and future physical and emotional needs.

The record reflects that Eric and Mia have spent the majority of their young lives

with Mary and Greg. Mia, who was twenty months old at the time of trial, was six

weeks old when she was first placed with Mary and Greg, and Eric, who was almost

three years old during trial, was placed with Mary and Greg when he was fifteen-

months old. There is also evidence that Eric and Mia are well bonded to Mary and

Greg, whom Mia refers to as Mama and Dada, and who are willing to adopt Eric and

Mia if the Department is unable to place the children with a family member. See

84 Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (recognizing child’s present and future physical and

emotional needs, present and future emotional and physical dangers to child,

parental abilities of persons seeking custody, plans for child by individuals seeking

custody, child’s desires, and stability of home or proposed placement as best interest

factors); see also In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“Evidence that a child is well-cared for by a foster family or a

proposed adoptive placement, is bonded to the proposed placement, and has spent

minimal time in the presence of the child’s parent is relevant to the best interest

determination and, specifically, is relevant to the child’s desires.”).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s finding, we

conclude the jury could have formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of

Mother’s parental rights was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest. See In re J.F.C., 96

S.W.3d at 266.

Further, in view of the entire record, we conclude that the disputed evidence

is not so significant as to prevent the jury from forming a firm belief or conviction

that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Eric’s and Mia’s best interest.

Id.; see also In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631.

We overrule Mother’s fifth issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s decree of termination.

85 Veronica Rivas-Molloy Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.