In the INTEREST OF A.M. & A.M., Children, 495 S.W.3d 573

Children A.M.M. (autistic daughter) and A.M., Jr. (son) were removed in Sept 2014 after reports of parental neglect, domestic violence, parental mental-health issues, and parental drug use; mother tested positive for methamphetamine, father for marijuana.
The Department initially sought reunification; both parents completed services (parenting, substance-abuse counseling, domestic-violence classes) and visited the children, but had multiple positive drug tests during the case (hair and urine tests showing amphetamine/methamphetamine and other substances).
Trial on termination was held in Sept 2015 and continued to Jan 2016; the Department sought termination based on endangerment and failure to comply with a court order, and on best-interest grounds.
Expert testimony (drug-test interpretation) established hair-follicle tests detect prior months’ use; both parents had positive methamphetamine results during the pendency of the suit, which the court treated as evidence of ongoing illegal drug use despite their denials.
Evidence showed parental histories of domestic violence, the mother’s serious mental-health history, and the foster parents’ provision of stable care with progress for both children; foster parents sought to adopt.
The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; father appealed sufficiency, mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for predicate endangerment (§161.001(b)(1)(E))	Father argued sporadic positive tests do not show a course of conduct endangering children	Mother did not raise contested issues on appeal (Anders)	Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient: illegal drug use during pendency supported endangerment finding (parental impairment/risk)
Sufficiency for predicate failure to comply with court order (§161.001(b)(1)(O))	Father challenged sufficiency of this alternative ground	Not argued by mother on appeal	Court did not reach this issue because endangerment alone was sufficient to support termination
Sufficiency that termination was in children’s best interest (§161.001(b)(2))	Father argued termination not in children’s best interest given some parental improvements and children’s bonds	Mother’s counsel concluded no non-frivolous grounds for reversal	Court held Holley factors and evidence of parental drug use, domestic violence, instability, and foster placement stability supported best-interest finding
Counsel withdrawal on Anders brief for mother	N/A (father’s appeal only)	Mother’s counsel sought to withdraw after filing Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues	Court affirmed mother’s termination but denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel must continue to represent mother for potential further review (petition for review)

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate finding under §161.001(b)(1) needed when best interest also shown)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard; legal and factual sufficiency framework)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of endanger — more than metaphysical injury; need not show child was actually injured)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental narcotics use and its effect on ability to parent can constitute endangerment)
Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (drug use during pendency supports endangerment finding)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive factors for child’s best interest)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (absence of proof on every Holley factor does not preclude a best-interest finding)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process requires heightened proof to terminate parental rights)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination orders are strictly scrutinized)