in the Interest of T.A.M. and B.G.W. A/K/A Z.W., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of T.A.M. and B.G.W. A/K/A Z.W., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 21, 2010·No. 02-09-00011-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-011-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.A.M.

AND B.G.W. A/K/A Z.W.,

CHILDREN

------------

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION^{^[1]}

------------

Appellants P.M. and N.W. appeal the trial court=s order terminating their parental rights to their daughters T.A.M. and B.G.W. a/k/a Z.W. After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that P.M. and N.W. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the children, knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger their physical or emotional well-being, and constructively abandoned the children.^{^[2]} The trial court also found that termination of the parent‑child relationships would be in the children=s best interest. We affirm the trial court=s judgment of termination.

N.W.

In her sole issue, N.W. argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to show that termination of her parental rights is in the children=s best interest. In reviewing the evidence for factual sufficiency, we must give due deference to the factfinder=s findings and not supplant the judgment with our own.^{^[3]} We must determine whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that the termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the best interest of the child.^{^[4]} If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction in the truth of its finding, then the evidence is factually insufficient.^{^[5]}

There is a strong presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in the child=s best interest.^{^[6]} Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is also presumed to be in the child=s best interest.^{^[7]} The following factors should be considered in evaluating the parent=s willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe environment:

(1) the child=s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities;

(2) the frequency and nature of out‑of‑home placements;

(3) the magnitude, frequency, and circumstances of the harm to the child;

(4) whether the child has been the victim of repeated harm after the initial report and intervention by the department or other agency;

(5) whether the child is fearful of living in or returning to the child=s home;

(6) the results of psychiatric, psychological, or developmental evaluations of the child, the child=s parents, other family members, or others who have access to the child=s home;

(7) 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;

(8) whether there is a history of substance abuse by the child=s family or others who have access to the child=s home;

(9) whether the perpetrator of the harm to the child is identified;

(10) 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;

(11) the willingness and ability of the child=s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes within a reasonable period of time;

(12) whether the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI