in the Interest of A. S., a Child, 12-16-00104-CV

Background

S.T. (mother) appealed the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to A.S., born May 23, 2014; DFPS was appointed temporary managing conservator and sought termination.
Two incidents triggered DFPS involvement: (1) May 2014 motor vehicle accident while S.T. was under the influence with A.S. present (A.S. unharmed); (2) March 2015 where S.T. was found unconscious/comatose and A.S. was found outside covered in dirt.
S.T. has extensive prior DFPS history involving neglect, mental‑health issues, prescription/illegal drug use, and abuse allegations involving an older child; criminal convictions include DWI and other offenses and a pending child‑endangerment charge.
S.T. was incarcerated/in SAFP during much of the proceedings and had an active service plan (counseling, substance‑abuse treatment, parenting classes); DFPS and CASA reported A.S. was thriving and bonded to foster parents.
At trial the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was proper under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; the trial court ordered termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.T.)	Defendant's Argument (DFPS)	Held
1. Denial of motion to extend one‑year dismissal date (first motion)	Incarceration in SAFP constituted "extraordinary circumstances" warranting 180‑day extension to pursue reunification	Incarceration was her fault and not extraordinary; little time post‑release to complete plan; extension not in child’s best interest	Court affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion
2. Denial/overruling of second extension/continuance seeking more time to locate/serve father	Lack of notice to alleged fathers was extraordinary and required continuance/extension	Confusion about paternity caused by S.T.’s inconsistent identification; DFPS could not locate father; separate paternity hearing ordered	Court affirmed implicit denial; no abuse of discretion
3. Legal/factual sufficiency of evidence for termination under §161.001(b)(1)(E)	Evidence was insufficient—incidents did not injure A.S.; prior monitored return was successful; S.T. participating in treatment	Evidence of repeated dangerous conduct (DWI with child, comatose while child unattended), substance abuse, mental‑health instability, criminal history, and history of neglect supported endangerment course of conduct	Court held evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (E)
4. Legal/factual sufficiency that termination is in child’s best interest	S.T. had housing/income, A.S. was unharmed, prior service plan was completed successfully	A.S. is bonded to foster family, is thriving; S.T.’s long history of instability and substance/mental‑health problems make reunification unlikely and permanence necessary	Court held evidence was legally and factually sufficient that termination was in A.S.’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (standard for dismissal‑date extension and focus on child’s needs)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal sufficiency review and reviewing all evidence in light most favorable to finding)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency standard for termination—firm belief or conviction)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment may be inferred from parental misconduct; conduct need not be directed at child)
Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1976) (termination proceedings require strict scrutiny due to fundamental parental rights)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining best interest of the child)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental narcotics use can constitute endangering conduct)
In re T.N., 180 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005) (repeated illegal drug activity and association with criminals support endangerment analysis)