in the Interest of A.P., Children, 04-16-00259-CV

Termination trial after three-day bench trial (Jan. 11–13, 2016); parents Christopher B. and Brittany B. lost parental rights to O.B.; Brittany also lost rights to A.P.
Department investigated reports of domestic violence, parental methamphetamine use, and Christopher’s psychotic hallucinations (including alleged writings seen on family members and child). Children exhibited trauma-related behaviors; A.P. made statements about abuse and a sexualized shower incident with Christopher.
Brittany initially reported violence, rape, and strangulation by Christopher, but later recanted portions at trial and gave varying explanations for injuries and carved scars; both parents admitted past methamphetamine use but testified they had tested negative for drugs more recently.
A psychologist evaluated the parents and concluded Christopher had chronic mental illness with psychotic features and both parents exhibited denial that undermined benefit from services; the caseworker testified parents completed tasks but did not meet service-plan goals or demonstrate prioritizing the children.
The children had been placed with maternal relatives (aunt and uncle) who sought to adopt; the relatives testified the children bonded with them and showed behavioral improvement in therapy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of A.P.’s outcry under Fam. Code §104.006	Dept.: A.P. available to testify; outcry made to trusted relative soon after shower; reliable	Brittany: Mark’s testimony was hearsay and inadmissible	Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion; trial court could implicitly find reliability and availability; testimony admitted
Sufficiency of evidence for statutory predicate (161.001(1)(B)) as to Brittany	Dept.: Brittany exposed children to domestic violence and drug use, satisfying endangerment grounds	Brittany: Sent A.P. away to protect him; disputes some allegations	Court: Evidence of exposure to violence and drugs supports predicate findings (endangerment)
Sufficiency of evidence that termination is in children’s best interest	Dept.: Children vulnerable, behaviors from trauma, parents deny harm and haven’t remedied risks; relatives provide stability and plan to adopt	Parents: Completed service-plan tasks, negative recent drug tests, caring for new baby, claim improvement	Court: Evidence sufficiently supports best-interest finding; permanent safe placement with relatives favored
Credibility and weight of completed services	Dept.: Completion was superficial; goals not met and denial persisted	Parents: Completion of classes, therapy attendance, recent stability and income	Court: Factfinder reasonably discredited parents’ progress and relied on totality of evidence to support termination

Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility rulings)
In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002) (bench trial admissibility of child outcry may be determined when offered)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. 1982) (appellate standard for review of trial court factual findings)
In re K.L., 91 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (trial court may implicitly make required findings under Fam. Code §104.006)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (elements required for termination under Fam. Code §161.001)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and sufficiency review for termination)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors and best-interest analysis)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for child’s best interest)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in child’s best interest)
In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (exposure to family violence/drug use can establish endangerment)
In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (factfinder may measure future parental conduct by past conduct)