In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00127-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Y.S. AND E.S., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 80003-L1, Honorable Jack Graham, Presiding
July 24, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
The father of YS and ES appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental
rights and naming mother the sole managing conservator of the children. Through his
sole issue, he contends the evidence presented below was legally and factually
insufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the
best interests of his children. We affirm.
Background
At the time of the final hearing, YS was almost seven years old, and ES was
nearly three. Mother appeared; father did not.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with
the family when ES tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of her birth.
Testing on the mother, father, and YS also indicated the presence of methamphetamine
in their systems. The children were placed with their maternal grandmother, and the
parents were to have only Department-supervised visits. On one occasion, a
Department employee visited the grandmother’s home. She found the mother and
father hiding in a closet. The children were then removed from the grandmother’s care.
Subsequently, the parents were given a service plan setting forth requirements to
secure return of the children to their care. Mother completed all services, and the
children were returned to her. The caseworker told the court they were doing “very well”
in her care.
On the other hand, father was jailed during various periods of the case, as
charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon pended
against him. While so jailed, he completed no services, though some were available.
During the months father was not jailed, he again failed to complete the services
required of him. Nor did he address the issues that led to the removal of the children,
i.e., drug use and domestic violence.
Evidence revealed that YS witnessed acts of domestic violence. They included
seeing father choke, kick, and push mother. So too did he see father hold scissors to
mother’s neck. This was “traumatic” to him.
Those present at the final hearing opined it was in the children’s best interests
that father’s rights be terminated, and mother be named sole managing conservator.
2
The trial court agreed by terminating father’s parental rights under Family Code section
161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and finding termination was in the children’s best interest.
Analysis
The standards for reviewing the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in
termination cases are well-established and described in In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256
(Tex. 2002) and In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014). We apply them here.
Next, a determination of best interest necessitates a focus on the children, not
the parent. In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d 571, 585 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020, pet. denied).
Appellate courts examine the entire record to decide what is in the best interest of the
children. Id.; In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 250 (Tex. 2013). Furthermore, there is a
strong presumption that it is in their best interest to preserve the parent-child
relationship. In re S.B., 597 S.W.3d at 585; In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex.
2006).
In examining the record, courts consider the various non-exclusive factors
itemized in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). They also guide our
decision here. The Department need not prove all of them especially when the
evidence illustrates that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the children.
In re C.T.E., 95 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)
(quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002)). Moreover, evidence supporting one
or more statutory grounds for termination may also reflect on the children’s best
interests. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249-50. That said, we turn to the evidentiary
record at bar.
3
Unlike mother, father had not addressed his drug use. Again, all members of the
family tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of ES’s birth. Moreover, father
had not attended NA meetings or sought other means of treatment while in or out of
prison. So too did he complete only a nominal number of random drug screens during
his six months out of jail and admitted to using marijuana during the pendency of the
case. While he suggests in his brief that his stay in prison provides a “strong
foundation” for remaining sober, there was no evidence that he remained sober or drug-
free.
Additionally, father was jailed during various periods while the termination suit
pended, and accusations against him of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon awaited disposition. Other evidence illustrated that father had yet
to address his history of domestic violence. And, as described earlier, the elder child
witnessed his acts of violence. So witnessing them was “traumatic” to YS; despite that,
father failed to complete any courses or services to address his violent tendencies. This
is of concern since the children’s best interests do not include continued exposure to
domestic violence. See In re T.S., No. 07-19-00260-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10633,
at *9 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting continued exposure
to domestic violence and drug abuse are circumstances supporting a determination that
termination of the parent-child relationship is in the children’s best interest).
As for compliance with the service plan, mother completed the requirements
assigned her. Upon her doing so, she regained possession of the children, and they
were doing “very well” in her care, according to the caseworker. On the other hand,
father completed none. In re K.J.C., Nos. 07-18-00395-CV, 07-18-00400-CV, 2019
4
Tex. App. LEXIS 1429, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 26, 2019, pet. denied) (mem.
op.) (among other things, failure to comply with the family service plan supports a
finding that termination is in the best interest of the children). Nor did he opt to
participate in the final hearing as a means of voicing his interest in and the continuation
of the parental relationship with his children.
In short, ample evidence existed permitting a fact finder to form a firm conviction
or belief that termination of father’s parental rights served the best interests of the
children. So, legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding
to that effect. Accordingly, we overrule the issue before us and affirm the order of
termination.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
5