In the Interest of G.J., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00368-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00368-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF G.J., A CHILD

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CIV-23-0529

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach MEMORANDUM OPINION

Drug use, family violence, and the parents’ dishonesty led the trial court to

terminate the parental rights of I.G. (Mother) and T.J. (Father) to their fourteen-

month-old baby G.J. (Max),1 see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(2)(D), (E), (2),

despite their having supposedly become “clean” during the case and despite each

parent’s having completed a service plan provided by the Department of Family and

Protective Services to help them reunite with the child.

At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court acknowledged the case’s difficulty and

remarked,

Trials are decided by truth and credibility. And when witnesses can only remember what’s convenient to them or what their counsel remind them of, and when witnesses are inconsistent from day one to day three, and when witnesses admit that they lied throughout the proceedings, it’s -- puts all of their testimony in question.

The trial court was specifically concerned with Mother’s and Father’s inconsistent

testimonies during the trial, with Father’s having taken the batterer’s intervention

program multiple times before but having “only figured out last year that you’re

supposed to respect your paramour and walk away from a fight,” with Father’s family-

violence conviction and willful bond-condition violations, with Father’s batterers

1 In a termination-of-parental-rights case, we use aliases for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2 intervention class instructor’s difficulty recalling details, and with Mother’s failing to

recall “all the times that [she] went to the hospital and why.”2

Mother and Father have both appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that

termination was in Max’s best interest.3 We hold that legally and factually sufficient

evidence supports the best-interest finding and will affirm.

Discussion

Mother and Father each claim that the trial court’s best-interest finding was not

supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

2 The child’s ad litem attorney, who recommended terminating the parents’ rights, noted, “[A]s we’ve seen over the last few days, we have very inconsistent testimony from Monday to today regarding drug use, regarding domestic violence” and that “it’s very, very abnormal to see this overnight change.” 3 In her brief’s table of contents, Mother also states that there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to support “that a predicate ground occurred.” However, she does not identify which predicate ground, and in the issue and arguments section of her brief, she challenges only the best-interest finding. We thus read Mother’s brief as challenging only the best-interest finding. But regardless, most of the evidence that supports best-interest also supports the endangerment finding. As discussed below, the trial court had undisputed evidence that Father used drugs at the home while Mother was pregnant, that both parents used drugs after Max’s birth, and that there were multiple incidents of violence between the parents, both during Mother’s pregnancy and after Max’s birth. See In re J.S., 675 S.W.3d 120, 128 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023, no pet.) (noting that a parent’s drug use or violence may make the child’s environment endangering for purposes of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D)); In re M.S., 662 S.W.3d 620, 630 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2023, pet. denied) (noting that domestic violence may be considered evidence of endangerment under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), even if the child was not present and was not injured); see also In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 749 (Tex. 2022) (discussing parents’ endangering use of controlled substances during pregnancy).

3 I. Standard of Review

For a trial court to terminate a parent–child relationship, the party seeking

termination—here, the Department—must prove two elements by clear and

convincing evidence: (1) that the parent’s actions satisfy at least one ground listed in

Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1); and (2) that termination is in the child’s best

interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); In re Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex.

2020). To determine whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a best-

interest finding, we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

challenged finding to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm

belief or conviction that the finding is true. Z.N., 602 S.W.3d at 545. We assume that

the factfinder settled any evidentiary conflicts in favor of its finding if a reasonable

factfinder could have done so. Id. We consider evidence favorable to the finding if a

reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable

factfinder could not. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). If we determine

that no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the

Department proved that the termination of the parent–child relationship would be in

the child’s best interest, then the evidence is legally insufficient. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d

256, 266 (Tex. 2002); see Tex. R. App. P. 43.3.

Under a factual sufficiency review, on the other hand, we review the entire

record to decide whether a factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or

belief that the Department proved the finding. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b);

4 In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002). If the factfinder reasonably could form such

a firm conviction or belief, then the evidence is factually sufficient. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at

18–19. But if a factfinder reasonably could not—because the disputed evidence that

could not reasonably support the finding is too significant—then the evidence is

factually insufficient. H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d at 108. Under either standard, the factfinder

is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d

336, 346 (Tex. 2009).

II. Best-Interest Factors

Although we generally presume that keeping a child with a parent is in the

child’s best interest, In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006), the best-interest

analysis is child-centered, focusing on the child’s well-being, safety, and development,

In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). We consider the evidence in light of the

statutory factors that apply in a best-interest determination and the nonexclusive

factors set out in Holley v. Adams. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b) (setting out

thirteen factors that trial court and Department should consider in determining

whether child’s parents are willing and able to provide child with safe environment);

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted) (setting out

nine best-interest factors); see In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013).

Some factors may not apply to some cases, and undisputed evidence of just one

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

interest. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. On the other hand, the presence of scant evidence

5 relevant to each factor will not support such a finding. Id. Evidence probative of a

child’s best interest may be the same evidence that is probative of a Subsection (b)(1)

ground. Id. at 28; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2).

III. Analysis

Mother directs us to evidence that after starting services, she and Father

eventually “tested clean” and then—after each relapsed—they remained clean for the

rest of the case and completed their service plans. Mother further complains that

during her caseworker’s testimony, the caseworker “repeatedly substituted her

judgment for that of the professionals the parents were referred to for services by the

Department . . . [and] repeatedly disregarded any service provider reports of progress

by the parents.”

Father asserts that even if his testimony and Mother’s testimony are excluded,

there is no factual evidence that supports termination of their rights as in Max’s best

interest. He contends that the only evidence the Department presented as to Max’s

best interest was speculative and in direct contradiction to the facts presented by the

Department’s own service provider experts.

A. The Evidence

1. The parents’ background information and history together

Mother and Father each provided information at trial about their background,

including each parent’s family, education, and employment.

6 Mother’s father moved to Mexico when Mother was 14. After he left, Mother

suffered abandonment issues and started using marijuana from friends. Mother’s

mother introduced Mother to methamphetamine when she was 19. Mother had not

seen her mother in the year before trial and had not seen her brothers in the seven

months before trial but occasionally texted them.

In 2022, then-20-year-old Mother began her first serious relationship with

Father, who was twice her age, moving in with him two weeks after they met. Both

were regular methamphetamine users. Before and after meeting Father, Mother used

methamphetamine almost every day. A month after moving in with Father, Mother

learned that she was pregnant with Max.

Including Max, Father has at least six children 4: Kristina, aged 22; Sarah, 20;

Seth, 17; Julia, 8; Sydney, 4; and Max. The older three children’s mother died in a car

wreck in 2010, and Father characterized his relationship with them as “[f]airly good.”

However, he acknowledged that Kristina had declined to testify on his behalf and that

his drug use had caused problems in their relationship. He claimed that Seth had

wanted to testify on his behalf in this case but was not old enough. As for Julia and

4 The report of the psychologist who did Father’s psychological evaluation stated that Father “reported having a total of 9 children, ranging in age from 9 months to 30 years old.” There was no evidence at trial that Father had more than six biological children, but there was some evidence that his deceased former partner had three children from a previous relationship and that those children had lived at least some of the time with Father and his former partner.

7 Sydney—the youngest children aside from Max—Father had not seen them in several

years.

According to Mother, she did not use methamphetamine while pregnant with

Max even though Father had continued to use it almost daily. Two weeks after Max’s

birth in May 2023, Mother resumed her drug use. The parents’ drug use triggered

arguments although, at trial, Mother only recalled three times when their fights

became physical.

One of the physical incidents occurred in July 2023 and involved Mother’s

being hit in the head with what she described at trial as a decorative candy cane made

out of PVC pipe material; at the time, Mother said that Father had hit her, but at trial

she and Father claimed that she had accidentally hit herself. That incident resulted in a

charge against Father for continuous violence against the family, and the indictment

alleged a June domestic violence incident, which Mother claimed not to recall. 5

The Department put on evidence of two other incidents that had occurred in

January 2023, both of which had resulted in Mother’s receiving medical treatment. At

trial—in contrast to Mother’s previous statements to third parties—Mother and

Father claimed that in each incident, Mother was the aggressor and Father only hit her

after she hit him first.

The indictment also alleged that Father had previously been convicted of the 5

felony offense of retaliation against a peace officer.

8 Neither parent graduated from high school, although Father has his GED. The

CASA volunteer and Frances Selner, the child’s caseworker, both offered Mother

resources to help her get her GED, but Mother did not take them up on that offer. In

December 2023, Mother got a job cleaning houses. In March 2024, Mother started a

job washing dishes at a nursing home. At the time of trial, Father was working as a

ranch hand.

2. The Department’s involvement

The Department put on evidence regarding its initial involvement with Max, its

offering Family-Based Safety Services (FBSS) services to the parents, and the parents’

violations of their safety plan that led to this child protection suit.

• The Department became involved after the July 2023 PVC pipe incident

and set up a FBSS plan under which Mother would have possession of

Max, supervised by one of Father’s relatives. Luke Schmitt, the

Department’s investigator, explained to the parents that Mother’s

contact had to be supervised by the relative and that Father’s contact

with Max had to be supervised by the Department.

• However, shortly after the plan’s implementation, Mother left with Max

and her mother, who was not approved to supervise Mother’s

possession due to a positive field test for methamphetamine. Further, as

9 Mother admitted to Schmitt, Father violated the plan at least twice by

going inside the relative’s house.

• In response, the Department changed the plan so that Mother and Max

would reside with Mother’s aunt, who would supervise Mother’s

possession of Max. The investigator again made sure that Mother

understood the new plan.

• A short time after the plan was changed, the Department was informed

that “Mother had left the residence with [Max] and went with [Father].”

This action violated not only the safety plan but also Father’s bond

conditions, as discussed more below. The Department then sought

Max’s removal.

• The FBSS caseworker and Schmitt tried to contact Mother. When

Schmitt spoke to Father for help locating Mother and Max, Father

“call[ed] [Schmitt] . . . names” and refused to tell him where they were.

• At some point that day, Mother contacted the FBSS caseworker to tell

her that she was at Father’s residence. It was unclear whose phone

Mother had used because Mother did not have cell phone service at that

time, and the residence did not have a landline.

• The FBSS caseworker testified that Mother told her that she did not

want to be at the residence but was “trapped there and unable to leave.”

10 Mother was there alone, and thus no one was keeping her from leaving,

but as discussed below, Mother had limited transportation options.

The Department took Max into its care and filed this child protection suit.

3. The parents’ drug use

The testimony at trial established that both parents became sober during the

case, relapsed, and then appeared to become sober again. The evidence also indicated

that Father had used drugs off and on for years—since his late teens—with multiple

relapses. This was not the Department’s first involvement in his life because of drug

use. When the mother of his oldest three children was still alive, he had used

methamphetamine on the weekends, but after she died in 2010, he started using daily.

He became sober in 2014, after the Department “had come into [his] life,” and was

sober for seven years. There was little evidence admitted at trial about the

Department’s previous involvement.

Mother claimed that she had stopped using methamphetamine when she

learned that she was pregnant, but Father did not stop using drugs while she was

pregnant, and she would become angry that he would not give her any. Mother

claimed that after Max was born, neither she nor Father ever used methamphetamine

with Max in the same room. She stated that Father went to the garage to use it and

that he “shower[ed] or clean[ed] up after using.” Except for their relapse in

November or December 2023, Mother and Father testified that they had stopped

11 using methamphetamine after the Department became involved. According to Father,

the relapse occurred on the weekend before his criminal case’s court date.

Father testified that he has not consumed alcohol since December 2023, but

when asked about his substance use during his psychological evaluation, Father did

not report either the November 2023 drug use or his December 2023 alcohol use.

Both parents testified about attending AA meetings.

The trial court also heard evidence that Mother and Father had complied with

their service plan’s requirements regarding drug testing and drug counseling. Selner

testified that both parents’ drug tests were consistent with their having stopped using

drugs. Selner did not order any drug testing for the month and half before trial

because she “thought the case would be done by then.”

The parents’ substance abuse counselor, Monica Kwiatkowski, testified about

why they used drugs and her belief that they would be sober going forward.

• Kwiatkowski stated that Father’s drug use was triggered by grief over the

death of his ex-partner and sense of loss from the “distance with him

and some of the kids.” She did not discuss what triggered his drug use as

a teen, while his ex-partner was still alive, or after his seven years of

sobriety that began in 2014.

• As for Mother, she had been exposed to her mother’s drug use when she

was still a teenager and developed unhealthy coping skills to address her

12 abandonment issues after her father left, such as seeking attention,

codependence, and staying in unhealthy relationships. Kwiatkowski said

that Mother was able to determine that her triggers for drug use were

anger and feeling unimportant.

• For both Mother and Father, Kwiatkowski said that attending meetings,

continuing with a therapist, and doing healthy activities all contribute to

success.

Kwiatkowski also testified about how drug use can contribute to domestic

violence. She stated that methamphetamine use increases dopamine, which causes

mood and behavioral changes that can last from hours to days. When the drug starts

to wear off, it can cause mood disruption, and people using methamphetamines are

more likely to fight.

4. Parents’ domestic violence and other relationship concerns

It was undisputed at trial that the parents’ relationship before the Department’s

involvement included physical violence, but the parties presented differing versions of

how that violence occurred. The Department’s version was that Father had physically

assaulted Mother, while the parents’ version was that Father was only ever violent

after Mother instigated the violence against Father or that he merely defended

himself. The trial court was thus presented with multiple possibilities based on the

evidence: that Father at least sometimes instigated violence against Mother, that

13 Father only ever hit Mother after she first hit him, or that Father only ever defended

himself or held Mother back.

Mother claimed that in each violent incident between them, she hit Father first

and that he never hit her with anything but his hands. Father also said that he never

hit Mother first. But Selner testified that she and Mother had spoken multiple times

about violence against Mother by Father and that Mother had never claimed not to be

a victim of violence and had never said that Father would only hit her after she hit

him. Father had also never told Selner that he was a victim of violence rather than a

perpetrator.

Mother testified that she could only remember three times when their

arguments turned violent: once in February 2023, once in April 2023, and the July

2023 PVC pipe incident. She did not recall a June 2023 incident that was alleged in the

continuous violence indictment against Father. When Father was asked at trial how

many times he had “put [his] hands on [Mother],” he referenced Mother’s testimony,

stating, “[S]he told you. . . . Every time she put her hands on me,” which was

“probably” more than three times but not more than four. However, he also said, “I

know there’s times I’ve hit her . . . but I can’t even recall it. I’ve put it so far out of my

mind.” As discussed below, the Department put on evidence of two January

2023 incidents that resulted in Mother seeking medical treatment.

14 a. The July 2023 incident

Mother and Father did not provide details about the February and April

2023 incidents, but multiple witnesses testified about the July 2023 incident.

• Mother testified during the Department’s case that she and Father had

argued that day after she accused him of cheating and after he refused to

give her some methamphetamine. Father tried to leave with Max, so

Mother grabbed the candy cane decoration from the yard. She tried to

hit Father with it but “ended up yanking it and hitting [herself] in the

head with it [and] caused [her]self to bleed.” Father then handed Max

back to her and left.

• In testifying about the incident for her defense, Mother claimed that she

did not remember everything that had happened. She remembered

picking up the PVC candy cane decoration, and her wound was in a

position where “conceivably [she] could have hit [her]self.” In his

testimony, Father denied hitting Mother with the object.

• Parker County Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph Evans, who responded to a

neighbor’s call, testified that Mother’s demeanor that day was

“distraught” and that she had an open wound on her hairline and dried

blood “all down her side.” He questioned Mother “pretty thoroughly,”

and she told him that after Father tried to take their child from the

15 residence, she tried to get the child out of the truck, and Father “grabbed

some sort of stick object . . . and hit her across the head.” She also told

him that Father had hit her with his closed fist and did not tell him that

she had hit herself. Deputy Evans noticed that Mother also had a scab

on her left eyebrow and a bruise on the back of her left arm that she said

Father had caused in an incident two weeks before.

• Mother acknowledged at trial that she told law enforcement that Father

had hit her, but she claimed that she had made it up.

• Mother also told Schmitt, the Department’s investigator, that Father had

hit her multiple times and had struck her on the head during the July

2023 incident. Schmitt had several long conversations with Mother over

a period of about three weeks, and she never said that she had hit herself

during that incident.

• Will Hutcheson, a Parker County Sheriff’s Office investigator,

interviewed Father about the incident. Father denied assaulting Mother,

described the incident as an accident, and said that Mother had

accidentally hit herself when he was trying to take the pipe away from

her. He also told Hutcheson that he had to defend himself because

Mother was a “big gal.” Father is 6 feet tall and weighs 280 pounds.

16 b. Other records of violence against Mother

Some of Mother’s hospital records were admitted, and they supported the

Department’s version of events—that Father was abusive toward Mother and that the

parents had been involved in two other incidents of violence, both occurring in

January 2023.

• Mother was admitted to the emergency room on January 18, 2023 for a

wrist injury. The notes stated, “The patient sustained a crash injury

(spouse landed on it). This was a reported assault.” Other notes state,

“This started last night. (per patient ‘my boyfriend & I got into a fight

last night & he fell on my arm.’ Patient states she contacted PD, but the

boyfriend made her leave before [the police] arrived at the home.” Notes

from a physical assessment state, “The patient has multiple abrasions

(neck). Multiple bruises noted (R eye).” In other words, what Mother

reported to emergency room staff framed the incident as Father falling

on her during an assault, the medical staff observed injuries consistent

with assault, and Mother had apparently been concerned enough to call

the police.

• At trial, Mother admitted that she broke two bones in her wrist during

the fight with Father but framed it as an accident. Father also framed the

incident as an accident but was hazy on the details; he said, “I can’t

17 remember the exact incident, but I know we were fighting and I fell.

And when we fell, it twisted her arm back and it broke.”

• The records also show that Mother was seen in the emergency room on

January 25, 2023. Medical notes report, “Patient states boyfriend/father

of the baby has been physically abusive since they began seeing each

other in August.”

• An incident report from Mineral Wells Fire and EMS began with the

dispatch to a convenience store for a reported assault and then described

how Mother ended up in the emergency room on January 25. When

EMS arrived, Mother was on the ground outside the store. Both Mother

and a third party reported to EMS that Mother had been assaulted and

kicked out of a vehicle:

Before reaching the [patient], a woman who witnessed the incident told firefighters that she witnessed a man assaulting the woman and then pushing her out of the vehicle before leaving the scene. Once firefighters approached the [patient], she was A&O with no visible signs of trauma. [Patient] stated that her boyfriend had assaulted her after an argument and then kicked her out of- the vehicle. She also stated that she was 21 weeks pregnant with her first child. Primary [patient] assessment found that she had pain in her head, neck[,] and upper back as well as her lower abdomen. [Patient] stated that the boyfriend had put her in a choke hold during the assault and hit her in the head. She also stated that he had kneed her in the abdomen which is why it is now hurting. . . . [patient] was asked about the wrist brace on the right wrist and hand. [Patient]

18 stated that it was due to a previous assault by the same man.

• At trial, Mother denied that she had ever been pushed out of a vehicle,

claimed not to recall the EMS interaction, and stated that she had made

up the part about Father choking her. Mother did acknowledge that

Father had struck her in the stomach with his knee.

• Father said that he had never pushed Mother out of a car. He did not

deny that Mother was taken to the hospital after that incident, but he

claimed he could not remember it.

c. The parents’ statements about the violence

The Department presented evidence that Mother had claimed to multiple

people that she had been subject to abuse.

• Mother acknowledged that she told two of her brothers and her mother

that Father had hit her.

• She made similar statements to the CASA volunteer, to her gynecologist

and his staff, to hospital staff, and to Selner. A nurse who works for

Mother’s gynecologist confirmed that Mother had told her during

multiple visits that she was a victim of domestic violence.

• The CASA volunteer testified that a neighbor had commented that

“sometimes it went both ways,” but until the parents’ trial testimony, the

19 CASA volunteer could not recall anyone—including the parents—saying

that Mother was sometimes the aggressor in their physical altercations.

• Selner testified that Mother had told her that Father would push her

around while she was pregnant. Selner had multiple conversations with

Mother, and Mother never said that she was the aggressor. Selner did

not believe the parents’ story at trial that they were mutually combative,

and she noted that Father had domestic violence issues in his past.

The parents presented testimony that, after the Department became involved,

they both told people that their fights were mutual and had been caused at least in

part by their drug use. Further,

• Father told Dr. Kimberly Booker, who performed Father’s psychological

evaluation for the Department, that he and Mother had mutually

engaged in violence. As discussed below, he also said that to

Kwiatkowski and to the instructor of his batterers intervention program.

Dr. Booker’s report noted that Father had reported a history of domestic

violence in his relationship with the mother of his youngest daughters,

Julia and Sydney.

• Mother also told Kwiatkowski that she and Father had engaged in

“mutually combative behavior” in their relationship and that she would

be the one who started their fights. After Father’s indictment, Mother

20 signed an affidavit of nonprosecution. In it, she said that the deputy who

had spoken to her about the July 7 incident coerced her into blaming

Father.

• Mother claimed that she and Father would get high and then fight but

that he never hit her first. And she claimed that she started “[m]ost of”

their altercations. There was some evidence of Mother’s engaging in

violent behavior; the residence had several broken windows, some of

which Mother claimed to have broken during arguments. Mother

claimed that she had lied about Father’s being abusive because she

wanted to make him “the bad guy” and that she had continued to lie

because she did not want to go to jail.

• Mother acknowledged that her testimony that she did not use drugs

while she was pregnant and that she argued with Father only while she

was high could not be reconciled with the evidence that some of the

violent incidents discussed at trial happened while she was pregnant.

• To explain these fights, Mother’s attorney solicited testimony from

Kwiatkowski that because of “post-acute withdrawal syndrome,” it can

take anywhere from six months to two years for a daily

methamphetamine user to “level out . . . and become more normal and

more of a return to their original personality” after they stop using.

21 Kwiatkowski testified that even when a person is sober, if the person has

not learned coping skills, he or she still might initiate violence.

• Mother testified that she would argue with Father while she was

pregnant because she was angry that he continued to use. Mother’s

attorney also elicited testimony that Mother was not having “[her] best

time emotionally” while pregnant because she was experiencing

pregnancy hormones and was unhappy about her weight gain.

d. Mother’s isolation by and dependence on Father

Aside from physical violence, the trial court also heard testimony from the

Department’s witnesses suggesting that Mother has been isolated by her relationship

with Father and that she was heavily dependent on Father, as well as testimony from

Mother’s and Father’s witnesses that any isolation by or dependency on him is

Mother’s choice.

• Mother does not keep in much contact with her mother and brothers. At

trial she identified two friends that she had before meeting Father,

neither of whom she was in touch with at the time of trial. One of those

friends was a friend from high school who used to visit from Graham

every few weeks. That friend stopped visiting after Mother moved in

with Father, and they had not talked in months before the trial.

22 • Father’s house, where they both live, is “out in the country,” and Father

works about twelve hours a day most days.

• Before this case started, Mother usually did not have cell phone service,

and the house did not have a landline. Mother obtained cell service

“[r]ight when CPS started.”

• Mother’s car stopped working shortly before she met Father, and

Mother does not have the money to fix it. The car also had broken

windows thanks to fellow drug users who had lived on Father’s property

for a time. The car had been towed to Father’s friend’s house, where it

remained at the time of trial. However, even if Mother had a working

car, she does not have a driver’s license. She told Selner that she would

get her driver’s license but did not; when asked why not, she responded,

“Just haven’t thought about it.”

• In March 2024, Mother got a job washing dishes at a nursing home.

Father takes Mother to work in the morning. A woman from their

church usually picks her up, but Father picks her up if the woman

cannot.

• Mother deposits her paycheck in an account she shares with Father.

• If Mother needs to go somewhere other than work, Father takes her.

Father and Mother also attend church and AA together; Mother has

23 never attended an AA meeting by herself. Other than work, Mother does

not go anywhere else without Father.

In summary, Mother had been living with Father “out in the country,” had no

reliable transportation, had no telephone until this case began, was not in much

contact with her friends or family, and was alone at the property for up to twelve

hours a day. Mother testified that when separated from Father during the case, on a

few occasions, one of her brothers gave her a ride somewhere, and she had previously

used public transportation. She did not provide any further information about the

availability of public transportation where she lived “out in the country” or her use of

it, and she also testified that she had missed two visits with Max because of lack of

transportation.

However, there was some evidence that Mother had been provided with

options to leave Father, if desired. Selner discussed Mother going to a shelter for

victims of domestic violence, and Selner offered to drive Mother there if she wanted

to go. Mother said that she would consider going, but she never did. The shelter

offers help with transportation—Selner testified that she told Mother that the

organization could have helped her get her driver’s license and get her car fixed—and

help with obtaining housing, but Mother was not interested. As of the time of trial,

Mother had cell phone service under her own name, which she pays for. She also pays

the electric bill for the residence.

24 The trial court also heard evidence about whether Mother had her own social

support network and whether she needed one.

• Father provided Selner with names of people who made up his support

network, and Selner did not contact those people to see if they could

also be a support network for Mother. However, neither Mother nor

anyone else indicated to Selner that the people on that list were also

people who would support Mother.

• Selner acknowledged at trial that Mother could meet people at church,

AA meetings, and group substance abuse counseling classes. Two

ministers from the parents’ church testified about providing support for

Father, and they both stated that if asked, their church members would

also provide Mother with support. Father’s employer, who attends AA

with Mother and Father, also stated that he would help Mother if she

asked for help. And Mother testified during her case that she considered

the people in those groups to be not just Father’s friends but also hers

and that she could contact someone from those groups for help if she

needed it.

• Mother testified that she feels that she and Father are equals and that she

is free to voice her opinions and free to use the money in their joint

account. And their substance abuse counselor testified that she did not

25 believe that Mother was being isolated by Father and was not concerned

that they had developed the same contacts through AA and church.

Even if the people on Father’s list would provide support for Mother, Mother

acknowledged in her testimony that she had learned in her class for victims of

violence about the importance of having contact with family members or having

friends “outside of the person you’re in a relationship with” and that she did not have

that. Selner also testified that she has spoken to Mother about the need to have a

safety support network outside of her partner, but Mother never named anyone she

could turn to for help who was not connected to Father, and Mother acknowledged at

trial that she did not have a support network outside of Father.

The Department also presented evidence that Mother and Father continued to

see each other during the case in violation of Father’s bond conditions.

• From mid-July 2023 until Father’s assault conviction in February 2024,

Father was subject to bond conditions that required him to keep away

from Mother. They regularly met in violation of those restrictions.

Father would instruct Mother to walk a certain distance away from the

residence to meet him to avoid detection by his GPS monitor.

• Mother acknowledged at trial that she skipped a supervised visit with

Max to spend time with Father.

26 • Father was charged with violating his bond conditions by going to the

residence where Mother was staying, and he was placed on community

supervision for that offense in March 2024. After being charged with

that offense, he received new bond conditions requiring him to stay

500 yards from Mother, but he continued to see her.

5. The parents’ evidence of a healthier relationship

Mother and Father also put on evidence, including testimony from

Kwiatkowski, to show that they have a healthier relationship now. However,

Kwiatkowski’s testimony indicated that she did not have the full picture of the

parents’ history.

• Mother and Father both testified that when they have disagreements,

they know to walk away from each other until they have calmed down.

• Mother stated that because of what she learned through her services, she

feels like a stronger person now and has no desire to hit anyone.

• The CASA volunteer testified that she had seen no signs of domestic

violence between the parents since they became sober. Selner testified

that she became concerned at one point that Mother was wearing long

sleeves to hide bruises, but Mother learned of those suspicions and

showed Selner her arms, which had no bruises.

27 • Kwiatkowski testified that she saw no indication that either parent was

violent when sober. Thus, she believed that without substance abuse,

they had a “pretty healthy” relationship. However, Kwiatkowski was not

the counselor who had provided either parent with counseling for

domestic violence.

• Kwiatkowski was asked about Father’s violation of the court order and

whether it was important to follow a court order to refrain from

contacting someone. She responded that “[i]t can be”; Kwiatkowski

believed that Mother would have been homeless unless the court order

were violated, but the evidence showed that her belief was not true.

Mother had moved in with a relative during the FBSS case, Selner had

offered to connect her with a women’s shelter, and then Mother had

moved back into Father’s house while he lived with a friend.

• Kwiatkowski testified that both parents were accountable for their part

in the violence between them. But when asked about what Father had

said about his part, she reported him saying that he would “hold

[Mother] back sometimes” and that he would instigate arguments

verbally. She could not recall if he ever admitted hitting Mother.

28 Andrew Tipton, who taught the batterers intervention and prevention program

that Father attended, described the class subject matter, what Father learned in the

class, and how Father demonstrated that he has changed.

• Tipton is not a licensed therapist and has no formal education in

counseling; his training was through online courses provided to him by

his employer.

• Tipton began working with Father in December 2023. Father attended a

group class over Zoom.

• Tipton testified that Father was honest about the trauma that he had

caused Mother and his children and that around the fourth or fifth week

of class, Father had an “[a]-ha” moment when he realized the root cause

of his problems and destructive mannerisms. According to Tipton, that

root cause was Father’s beliefs that men are better than women and that

a man’s role is being “master of the castle.” After that moment, Father

showed a change in demeanor, body language, and the way he talked.

Father appeared to learn to manage his anger and how to deescalate

arguments.

• Father successfully completed the course a month and a half before trial.

After completing the course, Father continued to attend classes.

29 • Tipton sometimes saw Mother in the background of the Zoom sessions,

and he never saw any indication that she was fearful and saw nothing

that concerned him about their relationship. Tipton did not share the

Department’s concerns about Mother’s being isolated.

• Father told Tipton that most of the domestic violence with Mother was

induced by methamphetamine. Father told Tipton that they were

mutually combative, but he “never got into any great detail about it.”

When asked what information Father had disclosed, Tipton could not

remember because he saw so many clients and because he had suffered

fourteen traumatic brain injuries in the past.

The trial court also heard testimony that Father had already taken a batterers

intervention class three times before. Tipton testified that he would not be shocked if

Father had to take the class four times for him have an epiphany. Father admitted that

he had taken a batterers intervention class in the past—he could not remember how

many times6—but this time he was more attentive. He believed that he now has the

tools to prevent future domestic violence.

6 Father stated that he did not recall taking the class during any other instance when the Department had been involved with his children because any previous Department involvement had involved drugs, not violence. As noted above, other testimony indicated that this case was the fourth time that Father had taken the class.

30 The parents put on testimony from church leaders to show that they had

changed and had the support of a community. William Eudy, who until recently was a

minister at the parents’ church, testified on their behalf, as did the current minister,

Billy Wilson. Both testified about the parents’ involvement in the church, and both

supported Max’s return to the parents.

• Eudy met Father at the church in 2008, when Father was there with

someone who was participating in a church program. Father became

more involved with the church beginning in June 2022. Since that time,

Eudy met Father two to three time a week.

• Eudy met Mother after Max’s birth. Eudy stated that Mother and Father

have both shown growth, although he did not expand on how Mother

had demonstrated growth.

• Father has discussed his life struggles, including anger issues. Eudy

began to see changes in Father in the fall of 2023. Eudy stated that he

felt like Father is someone he can count on for anything.

• Father also told Eudy about struggling with domestic violence in the

past and sought help with that issue, but Father never talked about

whether he had ever hit or pushed Mother. Father disclosed his criminal

charge for domestic violence against Mother.

31 • Bill Wilson, the current minister, has been with the church for six

months. Wilson has had many one-on-one conversations with Father

but none with Mother, although he has seen her converse with others at

the church. Wilson said that Father was remorseful for his actions. He

also said that Mother did not appear to be controlled by Father and that

the church members would be there for either parent if needed. 7

6. Parents’ completion of services and other relevant evidence

The evidence was undisputed that the parents completed all their court-ordered

services.8

The Department put on testimony regarding Max’s current placement, and

both parties put on evidence about the environment of the parents’ residence.

Wilson was asked if he would go help Father “[i]f he called up and said, 7

[Mother] just beat me up,” to which he replied, “Yeah, but no one’s going to beat [Father] up. Look at him.” 8 At some point during the case, Selner had added couple’s counseling to the parents’ service plans, but she did not file the amended plan with the trial court, and Mother did not sign the plan and was not asked to sign it. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.103(d) (stating that “[t]he original service plan takes effect when: (1) the child’s parents and the appropriate representative of the department sign the plan; or (2) the court issues an order giving effect to the plan without the parents’ signatures”); id. § 263.104 (providing that an “amended service plan supersedes the previously filed service plan and takes effect when: (1) the child’s parents and the appropriate representative of the department sign the plan; or (2) the department determines that the child’s parents are unable or unwilling to sign the amended plan and files it without the parents’ signatures”).

32 • Max is currently placed with Father’s cousin and the cousin’s spouse.

Father stated at trial that he has no concerns about the care that Max is

getting in his cousin’s home.

• Selner visits Max’s placement monthly where he is “doing wonderful.”

Max is meeting all of his milestones. The foster family has good

communication, and the other children in the home treat Max like a

brother. The foster parents hope to adopt him.

• The CASA volunteer had no concerns about Max if he stayed in the

cousin’s home, which was sometimes “a little messy” because it was a

busy family of five but was “always clean.” The family members “all love

[Max], they love each other[,] . . . [and] they seem to get along pretty

well.”

• As for the parents’ home, they had fixed most of the issues pointed out

by the Department, including childproofing and an issue with a gas

stove. According to Selner, the home still had small pieces of glass in the

yard even though Selner had pointed out the problem to Father multiple

times. Father claimed he had picked up the glass from the yard the day

before trial.

The trial court also heard evidence about the parents’ parenting skills and their

plans regarding Max.

33 • Selner stated that during visits, both parents talk to and hold Max and

take care of his needs, like changing his diaper. However, Selner also said

that when Mother and Father started visiting Max together, Mother did

not hold Max very often—“she did more of the cleanup”—and that her

bonding with Max appeared to stop.

• The CASA volunteer testified that she did not support a monitored

return. She asserted that Mother does not know how to play with Max

or engage him or how to soothe him when he is fussy. At visits, Mother

would hold him for a minute or two and then pass him to Father.

Considering that Father works ten-to-twelve-hour days, the CASA

volunteer was concerned with how Max would do left alone with

Mother. But she also stated that things had changed “[f]or the better”

over time and that she had never seen either parent do anything

physically harmful to Max.

• Contradicting the CASA volunteer’s testimony, Mother testified that she

plays with Max in visits and would continue interacting with him if he

were to come home with them. She further stated that Max is happy to

see them at visits.

34 • Father testified that if Max were to be returned to his and Mother’s care,

he would take a few days off from work to spend with him and then find

a day care.

• Regarding Father’s relationship with his other children, he testified that

he has not seen his youngest daughters, Julia and Sydney, since Father’s

Day 2022. Both parents claimed that Father does not see them because

their mother does not let him. But per a court order, Father was allowed

supervised visitation with his youngest daughters. At trial, Father claimed

that he did not know about the order until he learned about it during this

case. However, Father also stated that the reason he had not seen them

was because he had not wanted to be around them while he was a drug

user.

7. The trial court’s findings

At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court determined that Mother and Father

were not credible, found that Mother and Father had endangered Max, found that

termination was in Max’s best interest, see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (b)(2), and ordered their parental rights terminated.

B. Analysis

We begin by considering the factual sufficiency of the evidence because if the

evidence is factually sufficient, it is also legally sufficient. In re A.N., No. 02-22-00036-

35 CV, 2022 WL 2071966, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 9, 2022, pet. denied)

(mem. op.). Applying the evidence to the relevant factors, we conclude that although

the parents produced evidence in their favor, clear and convincing evidence supports

the trial court’s best-interest finding.

We first look at factors that are neutral or against the trial court’s finding.

Unsurprisingly, given Max’s young age, there is no evidence that Max was fearful of

returning to his parents’ home and no indication that he has any memories of living

with his parents, and he was too young to express his desire to live with either his

parents or his foster family. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(5); Holley, 544 S.W.2d

at 371–72 (considering child’s wishes in best-interest analysis); see In re A.P., No. 02-

22-00180-CV, 2022 WL 16646478, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 3, 2022, no

pet.) (mem. op.). Mother testified that Max was happy to see them at visits, but the

caseworker and CASA volunteer both testified that Max is happy and doing well in his

foster home. Thus, these factors weigh neither against nor in favor of the trial court’s

best-interest finding.

Father and Mother made improvements to their home to make it safe for Max.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(11) (considering “the willingness and ability of

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

reasonable period of time”), (12)(D) (considering “whether the child’s family

demonstrates adequate parenting skills, including providing the child and other

children under the family’s care with . . . a safe physical home environment”.).

36 Although the caseworker testified that she had seen small pieces of glass in the yard,

that was the only remaining uncorrected issue, and the parents had shown their

willingness to correct issues in the home. Father and Mother completed all their

services except for couple’s counseling, which was never officially made part of a

service plan. See id. § 263.307(b)(10). This evidence weighs against the trial court’s

finding.

As for plans for Max, Mother and Father testified that they would arrange for

childcare and that they had made all the Department’s required improvements to their

home. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (considering the stability of the home or proposed

placement and the plans for the child by the individuals seeking custody); see also Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(10) (considering “the willingness and ability of the

child’s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services”). During visits,

Father showed some parenting ability, including the ability to play with and soothe

Max. See id. § 263.307(b)(12)(F); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (considering the parental

abilities of individuals seeking custody). This evidence weighs against the trial court’s

On the other hand, Selner and the CASA volunteer expressed concerns about

Mother’s not knowing how to interact with Max, although the CASA volunteer had

acknowledged some improvement. If the trial court believed their testimony, then that

evidence weighs in favor of the finding, especially considering that the evidence

suggested that Mother would be Max’s primary caregiver and would be alone with

37 him for hours at a time on most days. Further, the trial court had evidence about

Max’s current placement and their hope to adopt him, and that evidence indicated

that Max would do well in that home.

The trial court could also consider Father’s psychological evaluation. Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(6) (considering psychological evaluation of child’s parent).

The evaluation stated that Father was optimistic, resilient, and adaptive and that he

did not have any attitudes toward parenting that were associated with high levels of

maltreatment. The evaluation also stated that Father’s responses suggested that he has

a history of antisocial behavior, had a strong need for attention, and may have been

involved in physical aggression toward others.9 When considered with evidence of

Father’s violence toward Mother, this evaluation did provide some support for the

trial court’s finding in that parts of it are consistent with evidence of violence by

Father. Mother’s psychological evaluation was not offered at trial.

Max’s young age makes him especially vulnerable. Id. § 263.307(b)(1). There is

no evidence that Max was physically harmed by his parents, see id. § 263.307(b)(4), but

there is evidence of a history of assaultive conduct in their relationship. See id.

§ 263.307(b)(7) (considering “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”).

Although Mother and Father denied that Father ever hit Mother except when she hit

9 The evaluation stated that Father’s legal history included multiple assault charges.

38 him first, the trial court did not have to believe them. Further, even if the trial court

had believed them, that would only mean that both parents had been violent. Mother

and Father admitted to three violent incidents, but they claimed not to remember the

incident at the convenience store and downplayed the incident that resulted in

Mother’s broken wrist.

Additionally, Kwiatkowski testified that Father had taken responsibility for his

violence against Mother, but that was true only if Father had done no more than

instigate verbal arguments or hold Mother back. If the trial court found that Father

had been violent against Mother—and it had evidence from which it could make that

finding—then the trial court could find that Father had not been honest with

Kwiatkowski. If the trial court found that the parents were not honest about the

violence between them, it could have further determined that they had not

demonstrated the ability to protect Max from exposure to violence. See id.

§ 263.307(b)(12)(E); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (considering the emotional and physical

danger to the child now and in the future and the parent’s acts or omissions indicating

that the existing parent–child relationship is not a proper one).

Mother and Father presented testimony from their substance abuse counselor

that their violence was correlated with their drug use and Mother’s pregnancy

hormones, and the instructor in Father’s batterers intervention class believed that

Father had changed. But the trial court did not have to give this testimony much

weight, especially given that this was the fourth time that Father had taken the class,

39 that Father claimed to not remember taking the class before, and that the trial court

had evidence that the parents had minimized the violence between them to the

substance abuse counselor. Further, the trial court could have found not credible the

parents’ testimony that they would not be violent with each other in the future.

Moreover, Mother and Father violated two FBSS safety plans, and, after Max

was removed, they violated Father’s bond conditions—with Father instructing

Mother how they could do that without his getting caught. Some of those violations

involved one or both parents being around Max unsupervised when supervision was

required See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b)(10) (considering the willingness and

ability of the child’s family “to cooperate with and facilitate an appropriate agency’s

close supervision”). Additionally, after Father was caught and criminally charged with

violating his bond conditions by being around Mother, he then intentionally violated

his bond conditions for that new offense by continuing to see Mother. Given that the

parents were willing to risk Father’s going to jail and termination of their parental

rights to continue seeing each other during the case, the trial court had evidence that

they would be unwilling to submit to the Department’s supervision under a

monitored return or to make Max’s needs a priority.

Regarding the parents’ social support system, Father provided Selner with a list

of people, including fellow church members, who could provide support to the family

as needed. See id. § 263.307(b)(13) (considering “whether an adequate social support

system consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the child”). On the

40 other hand, Mother testified that she did not have her own social support network

other than people she knew with or through Father.

Some evidence did indicate that, if Mother had been isolated from her few

friends and her family, it was by choice. Mother described herself at trial as a

“homebody,” and by the time of trial she had her own cell phone service in her name

and a job, and she had opportunities to form relationships at church, at AA, and at

her job. But other evidence indicated that Mother could be easily isolated by Father.

She did not have easy access to her own transportation. She did not have a phone

until the case started, and although she pays for her own service, she pays for it out of

an account she shares with Father. She could not name any family member or friend

not connected to Father with whom she had kept in regular contact since she began

her relationship with Father. Outside of the house, she was never without Father

except when she was at work. Even if Mother’s lack of independence from Father was

entirely her choice, that could also be considered by the trial court as concerning

behavior because Mother had learned from multiple sources about the importance of

having her own social support and because Kwiatkowski had identified codependence

as one of Mother’s unhealthy coping skills for her feelings of abandonment. Under

the specific circumstances of this case, the trial court could have considered as

relevant to Max’s best interest the fact that Mother did not appear to have resources

or support independent of Father, even after being told that, given her circumstances,

having that support was important.

41 In summary, the trial court could have decided that it was irrelevant who

started the violence between the parents because, either way, the parents minimized

Father’s participation in it despite Mother’s multiple hospital trips. Neither parent

fully explained how Mother had broken her wrist or explained the statement of an

eyewitness who had said that Father had assaulted Mother and then kicked her out of

the car at the convenience store; they instead denied that it had occurred or claimed

not to remember it. They provided no explanation for bruises that third parties had

seen on Mother. Further, the trial court did not have to believe that the PVC pipe

incident was accidental or was caused by Mother. Additionally, multiple incidents of

violence occurred while Mother was pregnant. And the trial court had evidence that

Father had been through a batterers intervention program before, meaning that he

had had issues with domestic violence in at least one previous relationship and had

received treatment for it, but he still engaged in violence with Mother. That is, when

all of the evidence was considered together, the trial court could have determined that

Father was abusive, that Mother was overly deferential to him despite that abuse, and

that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect herself or Max from future violence.

The trial court could consider these circumstances in deciding whether the parent–

child relationship was proper.

The trial court also had evidence of the parents’ history of substance abuse,

including Father’s long-time use and repeated relapses. See id. § 263.307(b)(8)

(considering “whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child’s family or

42 others who have access to the child’s home”); see also In re S.Q.-M.B., No. 04-24-

00296-CV, 2024 WL 3882144, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2024, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (“Illegal drug use is relevant to multiple best interest considerations, . . .

including a child’s emotional and physical needs now and in the future, a parent’s

parental abilities, stability of the home, and a parent’s acts or omissions pertinent to

determining whether the parent-child relationship is improper.”).

The parents’ apparent sobriety for the approximately eight months before trial

is commendable and was relevant evidence for the trial court to consider. See In re

D.T., Nos. 07-19-00071-CV, 07-19-00072-CV, 2019 WL 3210601, at *8 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo July 16, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that father’s sobriety for more

than a year before trial and absence of witnesses expressing concern over a possible

relapse weakened inference drawn from father’s past drug use that he would relapse in

the future). But given Father’s long-term drug use and his relapse after a long period

of sobriety—and his admission of previous involvement with the Department

because of his drug use—the trial court could consider Father’s past drug use as

evidence that termination was in Max’s best interest. See In re H.L.H., No. 10-16-

00254-CV, 2018 WL 1321750, at *19 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (noting that evidence of past misconduct can be used to measure a

parent’s future conduct); In re M.L.G.J., No. 14-14-00800-CV, 2015 WL 1402652, at

*7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 24, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that a

43 parent’s continuing illegal drug use after a child’s removal is conduct that may be

considered as establishing that termination is in the best interest of the child).

As for Mother, she claimed that she had stopped using drugs while pregnant,

but soon after Max’s birth, she began using again, and she stopped using after the

Department became involved but then relapsed several months later. Thus, although

her drug use history is not as long as Father’s, she has had two relatively recent

relapses after periods of sobriety. The trial court could consider the possibility of her

relapse in the future, especially given that Mother lives with Father, who also has a

history of relapses, and that the parents claimed that their violence was spurred by

their drug use.

Additionally, Father claimed that he had not wanted to see some of his children

because he did not want to be around them while using drugs, but he did not seek

help for that drug use so that he could see those children again. He used drugs during

Mother’s pregnancy and continued to use drugs while living with Max, indicating that

he had prioritized his drug use over his children.

As for Mother, though she claimed that she had not used while pregnant, she

chose to live with Father, who was using, despite the fact that—according to both

parents—their drug use made them prone to violence. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at

372 (considering child’s emotional and physical needs and the emotional and physical

danger to the child, now and in the future); see also In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d 822,

834 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (“A factfinder may afford

44 great weight to the significant factor of drug-related conduct.”). Even if Mother

managed to stay sober, there was evidence that Mother prioritizes Father over Max,

and thus the trial court could consider the real possibility that Mother would choose

to stay with Father if he relapsed, just as she had stayed with Father while he

continued using during her pregnancy. The parents’ drug use supports the trial court’s

It was the trial court’s role as factfinder to weigh the witnesses’ credibility and

to resolve conflicts in evidence, and we may not substitute our opinion for the trial

court’s. See In re P.M., No. 02-23-00365-CV, 2024 WL 976819, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Mar. 7, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Applying the appropriate standard of

review, the parents’ evidence against the trial court’s best-interest finding is not so

significant that a reasonable factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or

conviction that termination was in Max’s best interest. Accordingly, the evidence is

factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest findings, and,

consequently, the evidence is also legally sufficient to support the findings. We

therefore overrule each parent’s issue.

Conclusion

Having overruled each parent’s issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

45 /s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice Delivered: February 6, 2025