Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00416-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.H., and A.H., Children
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00033
Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 25, 2015
AFFIRMED
This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s order terminating appellant father’s
(“Father”) and appellant mother’s (“Mother”) parental rights to their three children, Annie, April
and Ariel. 1 Although Father and Mother separately appeal the trial court’s order, neither parent
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings relating to the
statutory grounds for termination. Rather, both parents contend the evidence is legally and
factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best
interests. We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.
1
All three children share the same first and last initials. Therefore, in order to refer to the children individually when
necessary and to protect their identity, we shall refer to each of the children by the above referenced pseudonyms. See
TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d) (West 2014); In re E.A.T., No. 04-14-00705-CV, 2013 WL 694929, at *1 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Feb. 18, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).
04-15-00416-CV
BACKGROUND
Raquel Rodriguez is an investigator with the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services (“the Department”). She became involved with the family after receiving reports of
negligent supervision and physical neglect regarding two of the family’s three children, Annie and
April. At that time, Annie and April were approximately two and one and a half-years-old,
respectively, and Ariel, the family’s third child, was not yet born. According to Ms. Rodriguez,
the Department implemented a family-based service plan and placed Annie and April with a
relative. During this time, Mother and Father were allowed supervised access to the children. At
some point during the course of the family-based service plan, the children were left unsupervised,
and April suffered a serious leg injury. According to Mother, the family was visiting her father,
and she put the children down for a nap in one of the bedrooms. The mattress, which was three
and a half feet from the floor, rested on a larger bed frame, creating a gap. The record reflects that
April somehow fell through the gap and seriously fractured her leg. April was taken to the hospital,
and the Department was immediately alerted about the incident.
Thereafter, the Department initiated legal proceedings, ultimately seeking to terminate
Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Annie and April. The trial court granted the Department
temporary emergency conservatorship, and service plans were created for the parents. During this
time, Mother gave birth to Ariel, and the Department amended its petition, seeking to terminate
Mother’s and Father’s rights to her as well. Over the next couple of months, the required statutory
hearings were conducted, and during this time period, the children stayed with two foster families.
All three children were ultimately placed with one of those families.
The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the trial court heard testimony from ten witnesses,
including Mother and Father. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court rendered an order
terminating Father’s and Mother’s rights, finding both parents had violated sections
-2-
04-15-00416-CV
161.001(1)(D), (E) and (O) of the Texas Family Code (“the Code”) and that termination was in
the children’s best interests. 2 See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O), (2) (West
2014). Thereafter, Mother and Father perfected their appeals.
ANALYSIS
As previously noted, neither Mother nor Father contest the trial court’s findings under
section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code. Mother and Father raise the same single issue,
arguing the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that
termination was in the best interests of the children.
Standard of Review
A trial court may order the termination of a parent-child relationship if the trial court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the parent committed one of the grounds listed under
subsection one of section 161.001 of the Code; and (2) termination is in the best interest of the
child. Id. §§ 161.001(1), (2); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2009); In re E.A.G., 373
S.W.3d 129, 140 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. denied). “Clear and convincing evidence”
is defined as “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 ANN. § 101.007 (West
2008); see J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 344; E.A.G., 373 S.W.3d at 140. A heightened standard of review
is applied because termination of a parent’s rights to his or her child results in severe and
permanent changes to the parent–child relationship, implicating due process concerns. E.A.G.,
373 S.W.3d at 140. Furthermore, a termination decision cannot be based on only the grounds
2
Specifically, the trial court found both parents knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in
conditions or surroundings that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being; engaged in conduct or
knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or
emotional well-being; and failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary
for the parents to obtain the return of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O).
-3-
04-15-00416-CV
listed under subsection one of section 161.001 of the Code; both elements must be established.
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); In re C.B., 440 S.W.3d
756, 767 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.).
When reviewing the evidence for legal sufficiency, we view all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the trial court’s findings and judgment, and we determine whether the evidence
is such that a fact finder could reasonably form a firm belief that termination was in the best interest
of the child. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005). We resolve any disputed facts in
favor of the trial court’s findings so long as a reasonable fact finder could have done so, and we
disregard all evidence a reasonable fact finder could have disbelieved. Id. In other words, we
consider evidence favorable to termination if a reasonable fact finder could, and we disregard
contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not. Id. We do not weigh witness
credibility if it depends on the appearance and demeanor of the witness because such issues are
within the domain of the trier of fact. Id. Even if credibility issues are found in the appellate
record, we must defer to the fact finder’s reasonable determinations. Id.
When reviewing the evidence for factual sufficiency, we consider whether the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact finder could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction in the
truth of the trial court’s findings. Id. (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). We
give due deference to the fact finder’s findings and avoid substituting that judgment for our own.
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). Just as in a legal sufficiency review, the
determination of a witness’s credibility and demeanor is made by a trier of fact, and we cannot
second guess the fact finder’s resolution of factual disputes. Id.
Best Interests — Substantive Law
Courts take into account a number of presumptions and factors when determining whether
the termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of a child. In re R.R., 209
-4-
04-15-00416-CV
S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(a). As for
applicable presumptions, there is a strong presumption that maintaining the parent–child
relationship is in a child’s best interest. R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116. Courts also presume, however,
that promptly and permanently placing a child in a safe place in a timely manner is in the child’s
best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(a). Accordingly, although parental rights are
of constitutional magnitude, they are not absolute. Jordan v. Dosey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 729 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).
As for applicable factors to consider, in Holley v. Adams, the Texas Supreme Court set
forth the following nonexclusive factors (collectively, “the Holley factors”) that courts may take
into account when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a best interest finding. 544
S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors include:
1. the desires of the child;
2. the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future;
3. the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future;
4. the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody;
5. the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of
the child;
6. the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody;
7. the stability of the home or proposed placement;
8. the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing parent–child
relationship is not a proper one; and
9. any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent.
Id. These factors are nonexhaustive, and evidence is not required on all of them to support a
finding that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interest. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d
17, 27 (Tex. 2002); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72. The absence of evidence as to some of the
-5-
04-15-00416-CV
Holley factors does not preclude a trier of fact from reasonably forming a strong conviction or
belief that termination is in a child’s best interest. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. In some cases, evidence
of merely one factor may suffice as support of a finding that termination is in the best interest of a
child. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 729 (citing C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27). Moreover, the same evidence
used to prove acts or omissions under section 161.001(1) of the Code may be probative in
determining the best interest of a child. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (citing Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 370;
Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex. 1976)).
Section 263.307(b) of the Texas Family Code also sets out factors courts may consider
when evaluating whether a parent is willing and able to provide the child with a safe environment,
including: (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 child’s family demonstrates adequate parenting skills; and (13) whether an adequate
social support system consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the child. Id.
-6-
04-15-00416-CV
§ 263.307(b); R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 116; In re A.S., No. 04-14-00505–CV, 2014 WL 5839256, at
*2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 12, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Finally, when conducting a best interest analysis, courts “may consider circumstantial
evidence, subjective factors, and the totality of the evidence as well as the direct evidence.” A.S.,
2014 WL 5839256, at *2 (citing In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013,
pet. denied)). A fact finder may judge a parent’s future conduct by her past conduct to determine
whether termination of the parent–child relationship is in the best interest of the child. Id.
Best Interests — Application
As indicated above, Mother and Father assert the evidence is legally and factually
insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.
According to Father, the Department’s case was based on the children’s alleged failure to thrive,
April’s leg injury, and allegations of domestic violence, each of which he contends was not proven
by sufficient evidence. Mother, however, argues there was no evidence as to several of the Holley
factors, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that
termination was in the children’s best interests. We disagree with Father and Mother.
As mentioned above, a court need not find evidence of each Holley factor before it
terminates a parent–child relationship. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. The absence of evidence as to
one or more of the Holley factors does not prohibit a court from reasonably forming a strong
conviction or belief that termination is in a child’s best interest. Id. Here, we hold the evidence
that does exist is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that it was in
the children’s best interests to terminate both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.
1. Desires of the Child
At the time of trial, Annie, April, and Ariel were three, two, and one-year-old, respectively,
and unable to indicate their desires as to placement. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(1)
-7-
04-15-00416-CV
(child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. According
to the children’s foster mother, the children never talked about Mother, Father, or returning home.
The children’s foster mother testified that before visiting Mother and Father, the children did not
express any opinion as to whether they wanted to visit their parents. And, although sometimes the
children became a little reluctant when they arrived to see their Mother and Father, for the most
part, the children were indifferent. Thus, the children’s ages render the first Holley factor — the
children’s desires — immaterial. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(1); Holley, 544 S.W.3d
at 371–72; see also In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no
pet.) (concluding that age of child — one-year-old — rendered consideration of desire neutral).
2. Emotional and Physical Needs of Child Now and in the Future
With regard to the children’s emotional and physical needs, the Department produced
evidence that two of the children were malnourished as a result of their parents’ neglect. See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(4) (child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities); id.
§ 263.307 (b)(12) (child’s family demonstrates adequate parenting skills); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at
371–72. The record reflects the Department became involved with the family after receiving
reports that Annie and April were significantly underweight. As part of its investigation, the
Department visited the family and took photographs of the children, which were forwarded to Dr.
Shalon Nienow, a pediatrician who specializes in child abuse and neglect at the San Antonio
Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Nienow testified that after reviewing the photographs, she asked to examine Annie and
April. Dr. Nienow testified she examined the children during the course of the family-based
service plan and concluded they were “extraordinarily underweight.” The doctor stated their
weight conditions were “very concerning” because the children ranked well below the third
percentile of other children their age. With regard to April, Dr. Nienow pointed out she
-8-
04-15-00416-CV
“especially, was really little [and] had hanging skin folds in her armpits, and her butt skin was kind
of sagging which we see in kids who have no subcutaneous fat.”
In addition to these physical signs of malnourishment, Dr. Nienow testified Annie and
April exhibited signs of developmental delay. Specifically, April, who was two-years-old at the
time of the visit, could not speak and just started walking, an ability most children achieve when
they are between ten and fourteen-months-old. Dr. Nienow also testified April was not crawling,
cruising, or pulling herself to stand, indicating she was considerably developmentally delayed.
According to Dr. Nienow, the children’s growth charts indicated the children’s malnourishment
must have existed for a prolonged period of time because they measured significantly below
normal in all areas of growth — weight, height, and head circumference.
The record reflects that as a result of the exams, Dr. Nienow admitted Annie and April to
the hospital for four days where they received nutritional supplements and gained “exorbitant
amounts of weight.” When the children were discharged from the hospital, the parents were given
a prescription for Pediasure, a nutritional supplement, and referred to the Women, Infants, and
Children’s Program (“WIC”) to obtain the supplement at no cost and to Early Childhood
Intervention (“ECI”) services so the children could receive physical and occupational therapy.
According to Dr. Nienow, she saw the children for a follow-up visit and learned the parents had
not made arrangements with WIC or ECI for the children to receive their nutritional supplements
and therapy. Dr. Nienow testified she called the WIC office that day and made arrangements for
the parents to receive the prescribed Pediasure; however, the parents never went to the WIC office
to retrieve it. Dr. Nienow testified she was highly concerned the parents took no responsibility for
the children’s malnutrition. Dr. Nienow stated she asked Mother whether the children were being
fed differently, and Mother informed her the children were eating just as they had before,
-9-
04-15-00416-CV
suggesting no changes had been made. Dr. Nienow testified she did not see the children again
before the Department was granted temporary custody.
After hearing testimony from Dr. Nienow, the trial court heard testimony from Mother
regarding the children’s weight. Mother testified she recognized Annie and April were
underweight and addressed the issue with the family’s pediatrician. Mother testified the family
pediatrician instructed her to switch baby formulas for Annie; however, it made the situation
worse, so she switched Annie back to her old formula. Mother added she believed Annie’s weight
issues had been resolved prior to Annie’s exam with Dr. Nienow. When asked about April, Mother
could not recall what steps were taken to address April’s weight issues. However, as indicated
above, Dr. Nienow testified both children were significantly underweight at the time of the exam.
Lastly, Mother testified she was unable to utilize WIC or ECI services due to transportation issues.
Here, the evidence undisputedly shows Annie and April displayed signs of dramatic weight
loss and lack of growth — specifically height and head circumference. Such evidence indicates
they were deprived of proper nourishment for a prolonged period of time. The evidence also
establishes that neither parent fully understood the significance of Annie’s and April’s
malnourishment. Thus, consideration of the second Holley factor — emotional and physical needs
of the children now and in the future — weighs in favor of termination. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 263.307(b)(4); id. § 263.307 (b)(12); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72.
3. Emotional and Physical Danger to Child Now and in the Future
A child’s emotional and physical well-being is endangered when he or she is exposed to
loss or injury or his or her emotional or physical health is jeopardized. In re T.R.M., No. 14-14-
00773-CV, 2015 WL 1062171, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 10, 2015, no pet.)
(mem. op.). Here, in addition to testimony of neglect in the context of malnourishment, the trial
court heard evidence regarding child endangerment, including additional instances of neglect,
- 10 -
04-15-00416-CV
domestic violence, and Father’s dangerous lifestyle. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(4)
(whether child victim of repeated harm after Department intervention); id. § 263.307(b)(7) (history
of abusive or assaultive conduct by child’s family); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72.
a. Additional Instances of Neglect
As mentioned above, the Department discontinued family-based services and initiated the
termination action after April severely injured her leg. During trial, both parents testified April
fell off a bed; however, Dr. Nienow testified the parents’ explanation was unlikely.
Mother testified she put the children down for a nap, but soon after, Father informed her
the children were awake. Mother testified that when she and Father went to check on the children,
they discovered April on the floor, crying. According to Father, April must have been trying to
climb off the bed and her leg became caught in the gap between the mattress and bed frame.
However, after reviewing April’s X-rays, Dr. Nienow testified Father’s explanation was highly
unlikely because April could not walk, and therefore, would not have been able to climb off the
bed “feet first.” Dr. Nienow opined April would “go head first and would suffer some injury to
the head or arms.”
Nevertheless, whether Father or Dr. Nienow was correct, the evidence shows the young
children were left unsupervised on an adult bed which was several feet off the ground and had a
large gap between the mattress and bedframe. Such evidence suggests parental failure to protect
the children from danger. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(4); id. § 263.307 (b)(12);
Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72; see also In re J.P., No. 02-12-00121-CV, 2012 WL 5949492, at
*10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 29, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding evidence of child
suffering tibia fracture as result of neglectful supervision was sufficient evidence for best interest
finding).
- 11 -
04-15-00416-CV
b. Domestic Violence
Moreover, the Department produced evidence that Annie and April were exposed to
episodes of domestic violence between Mother and Father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 263.307(b)(7). San Antonio Police Officer Matthew Porter testified he met Mother after
responding to a domestic violence call. Officer Porter testified Mother was visibly upset and
shaken because according to Mother, she and Father had been arguing all day. Officer Porter
testified Mother told him Father slapped her on the right side of her face and punched her in her
throat. Officer Porter added that Mother’s injuries were visible, particularly the redness and
swelling on her face.
Ms. Rodriguez, the Department caseworker, also testified that during the course of the
service plan, Mother called her, stating Father confronted her at her work, knocked items off the
shelves, and told her he was going to “mess up her CPS case.” Ms. Rodriguez testified Mother
acknowledged Father would physically abuse her while the children were in her care, and as a
result, she was fearful because Father was controlling. At trial, however, Mother retracted her
prior claims of domestic violence, claiming she lied to Officer Porter about Father’s actions
because Father did not intentionally hit her, and with regard to the work incident, she called the
police only because her supervisor requested she call.
The trial court also heard evidence from two domestic violence counselors who met with
the couple. In accordance with the service plan, both Father and Mother were required to attend
domestic violence counseling sessions; however, Father only attended three sessions before
“disappearing,” resulting in his discharge from the program. At trial, both counselors testified
Father was reluctant to participate in the counseling sessions and exhibited signs of denial about
the abuse. As a result, Father did not make any progress during any of his counseling sessions.
- 12 -
04-15-00416-CV
As for Mother, both counselors testified Mother showed “some progress,” but lacked the ability to
protect her children given she reunited with Father during the course of the treatment.
Evidence of the parents’ history of domestic violence supports the trial court’s best interests
finding. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)
(stating domestic violence supports finding that termination is in child’s best interest even when
child is not victim of violence). “A parent’s abusive or violent conduct can produce a home
environment that endangers a child’s well-being.” T.R.M., 2015 WL 1062171, at *6. Specifically,
instances of domestic violence may be considered evidence of endangerment. Id. Moreover, a
parent’s continued exposure to the other parent’s dangerous conduct is also evidence of
endangerment and a relevant consideration in determining a child’s best interest. In re O.N.H.,
401 S.W.3d 681, 684–85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.) (considering parent’s exposure
to other parent’s drug habits as relevant factor in determining child’s best interest).
In this case, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Father’s refusal to address
the domestic violence issue, and Mother’s willingness to remain in a violent relationship,
suggested similar conduct would occur in the future, thereby constituting evidence of emotional
and physical danger to the children now and in the future. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 263.307(b)(7); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. We conclude such evidence weighs against any
finding that Father or Mother have the ability to provide the children with a safe environment. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(7); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72; see also In re J.D., No.
02-11-00328-CV, 2012 WL 3115804, at *19 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 2, 2012, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (construing Mother’s willingness to remain with abusive partner as sufficient evidence of
Mother’s inability to provide child with safe environment); In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d 215, 226
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (concluding ongoing abuse between Father and Mother
- 13 -
04-15-00416-CV
resulted in emotional problems for children and weighed against parents’ ability to provide danger-
free environment).
c. Father’s Dangerous Lifestyle
Finally, the record contains evidence that Father was engaged in a dangerous lifestyle.
Father testified he could not recall how many times he had been arrested — “[m]aybe like two or
three times” — during his adult lifetime. The Texas Supreme Court has recognized that a pattern
of arrest is a relevant factor in a best interests analysis. See Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 534; see also In
re M.A.R, No. 04-01-00573-CV, 2002 WL 31015267, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 11,
2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Here, Father testified he had been arrested for
theft, possession of marijuana and cocaine, possession of an illegal weapon, and failure to identify.
The evidence also established Father, as well as Father’s family, has a history of gang
involvement. This court has held that a parent’s criminal background, gang affiliation, and
violence is evidence relevant to a best interest determination. See M.A.R., 2002 WL 3105267, at
*2. The record reflects Father was involved in several incidents in which he and his family were
violently attacked. Father testified four men shot his father when Father was visiting his family,
and on another occasion, his half-brother stabbed his brother and father and also tried to shoot him.
In light of the evidence set forth above, we conclude the evidence reasonably supports a trial
court’s finding that it would not be in the children’s best interests to remain with Father and
Mother. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(7); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72.
4. Parental Abilities
As to Mother’s and Father’s parental abilities, the evidence shows Mother and Father failed
to demonstrate a positive change during the course of their involvement with the Department. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(11) (willingness and ability of child’s family to effect positive
environmental and personal changes within reasonable time period); id. § 263.307(b)(12) (whether
- 14 -
04-15-00416-CV
child’s family demonstrates adequate parenting skills); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. A volunteer
with Child Advocates of San Antonio (“CASA”) testified she observed the parents during their
visits with the children at the Department’s offices. She testified the parents did not play or interact
with the children and would need to be regularly reminded to change the children’s diapers. The
volunteer opined neither parent exhibited any proactive parenting skills and both appeared
overwhelmed. She also testified Father failed to attend any visits when Mother and Father had
temporarily separated. Similarly, Ms. Rodriguez testified the parents were distant and Father did
not regularly see the children during the scheduled visitation time. Such evidence indicates neither
Mother nor Father were able to provide appropriate care for their children. See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 263.307(b)(11); id. § 263.307(b)(12); see also In re Z.R.M., No. 04-15-00063-CV, 2015
WL 4116049, at *6–*7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 8, 2015, no pet.) (concluding that evidence
of mother arriving late or failing to attend visits impacted child’s emotional well-being).
Ms. Rodriguez also testified Mother, who was pregnant with a fourth child, 3 did not receive
prenatal care until five months into her pregnancy and did not regularly follow up with a doctor
during the course of her pregnancy. Mother’s failure to obtain prenatal care in a timely manner in
combination with her failure in obtaining the nutritional supplements for her current children
demonstrates her lack of parental abilities. See Smith v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs.,
Nos. 01-09-00173-CV & 01-09-00390-CV, 2009 WL 4359267, at *12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Dec. 3, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that Mother’s failure to obtain prenatal care for
child weighed in favor of termination). Accordingly, we hold the evidence produced was sufficient
3
At the beginning of trial, the trial court learned Mother gave birth to a fourth child, who is not subject to this
termination proceeding. However, the Department initiated termination proceedings as to this fourth child, and at the
conclusion of the trial, the trial court appointed the Department as temporary managing conservatorship of this child.
- 15 -
04-15-00416-CV
for the trial court to conclude that Mother’s and Father’s lack of parental abilities weighed in favor
of termination.
5. Programs Available to Assist Parents
The record establishes that when the Department became involved with the family, it
provided Mother and Father with a family-based service plan, outlining the tasks they needed to
complete to avoid termination of their parental rights. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(10)
(willingness and ability of child’s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services);
id. § 263.307(b)(11); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. However, both parents failed to adhere to
the family-based service plan implemented by the Department and as a result, April was injured.
At that time, the parents were allowed supervised visits with Annie and April, who were being
cared for by a relative. Nevertheless, the record reflects neither parent was supervised by the
relative when April was injured.
The record also establishes that when the trial court granted the Department temporary
custody of the children, the Department provided Mother and Father with a service plan, detailing
the steps they needed to take to attain reunification with the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 263.307(b)(10); id. § 263.307(b)(11); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. The plan provided
information concerning resources and providers to assist the parents in completing the plans. The
evidence, however, shows Mother and Father failed to complete several tasks outlined in their
service plans and failed to comply with certain directions in the plans. The record reflects Father
failed to successfully complete his service plan and expressed reluctance to participate in numerous
services offered to him. According to Father, he was unable to actively participate in the service
plan due to work obligations; however, both Ms. Rodriguez and the CASA volunteer testified
Father was disengaged, often blaming the Department for his current situation. And, as indicated
- 16 -
04-15-00416-CV
above, Father did not complete his domestic violence counseling sessions, and both counselors
reported his lack of progress.
Moreover, the evidence establishes Mother did not successfully complete the service plan
in that she: (1) failed to complete certain aspects of the plan — maintain appropriate employment,
become financially stable, or obtain appropriate housing; and (2) failed to implement the
knowledge gained from the programs she did complete. See In re M.C., No. 04-14-00805-CV,
2015 WL 2375980, at *14 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 18, 2015, no pet.) (stating Mother’s
failure to apply knowledge learned from domestic violence classes weighs in favor of termination).
In addition, both Dr. Nienow and Ms. Rodriguez testified as to their concerns regarding Mother’s
lack of understanding regarding Annie’s and April’s nourishment issues. There was also concern
about Mother’s decision to remain in an abusive relationship with Father. Based on the foregoing
evidence, the trial court could have determined both parents failed to utilize programs offered by
the Department, which weighs against reunification. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.307(b)(10);
id. § 263.307(b)(11); Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72.
6. Plans for Children/Stability of Home or Proposed Placement
The trial court heard evidence that all three children are in a safe and stable foster home
with a family who has demonstrated the ability to care for and manage the children. See Holley,
544 S.W.3d at 371–72. Both foster parents testified they love the children and desire to adopt
them, 4 when given the opportunity. Moreover, the CASA volunteer testified the foster home is a
“very loving atmosphere,” highlighting the fact that the children were more affectionate with their
foster parents than with their biological parents. “When a prospective adoptive parent is standing
in the wings, ready and willing to adopt the child, courts are more likely to find that termination is
4
Both foster parents also expressed interest in fostering Mother’s fourth child, who, as indicated above, is not a subject
of this appeal.
- 17 -
04-15-00416-CV
in the children’s best interest.” See Smith, 2015 WL 4359267, at *13. Here, the evidence shows
a foster family is readily available to adopt the children and provide them with a loving home,
weighing in favor of termination. See id.
7. Parent’s Acts or Omissions
Finally, with regard to the last two Holley factors — parent’s acts or omissions that indicate
current parent-child relationship is improper and parent’s excuses for such omissions — the
evidence set forth above establishes Annie and April were unsupervised and severely
malnourished while in both parents’ custody. See Holley, 544 S.W.3d at 371–72. When the
children were removed from the parents’ custody, the Department implemented a service plan to
help Mother and Father become suitable parents. However, neither parent completed the service
plan outlined for them nor did they utilize the WIC or ECI resources provided to help their
children’s nutritional issues. Despite the fact both parents were aware the return of their children
was conditioned on completion of the service plan, both parents cited transportation issues or work
obligations as excuses for not meeting their service plan goals. Moreover, the evidence revealed
Father’s criminal history, gang involvement, as well as abusive conduct toward Mother. Both
domestic violence counselors and Ms. Rodriguez testified as to their concerns that there was
domestic violence in the home and Mother continually exposed her children to it, reuniting with
Father during the course of the Department’s involvement.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the evidence above in light of the Holley and statutory factors, and
indulging the necessary presumptions, we conclude the trial court could have reasonably formed
a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children’s best interests. See J.P.B., 180
S.W.3d at 573. The trial court was permitted to consider the direct and circumstantial evidence,
and when reviewing such evidence, we must defer to the trial court’s reasonable determinations.
- 18 -
04-15-00416-CV
Id. Although Mother and Father denied the Department’s allegations of neglect and testified they
attempted to comply with the Department’s requirements, the trial court was permitted to weigh
witness credibility determinations, and again, we must resolve any conflicting testimony in favor
of the trial court’s ultimate findings. See id. We therefore hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights would be in their
children’s best interests, and we affirm the trial court’s termination order. See A.S., 2014 WL
5839256, at *2.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
- 19 -