in the Interest of A.M. and C.M., Children, 07-21-00052-CV

DFPS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to A.M. and C.M.; an earlier termination order was vacated for untimely trial, DFPS refiled, and the district court terminated Mother’s rights in March 2021.
Mother opted to proceed pro se at the final hearing; DFPS witnesses (supervisor and caseworker) testified as to sustained concerns about Mother’s drug use and noncompliance with services.
Evidence included a positive hair-follicle test for methamphetamine after Mother spent 30 days in jail for refusing court-ordered testing; Mother also allegedly admitted using marijuana, pills, and cocaine but denied ongoing illegal use in court.
DFPS evidence described Mother’s home as largely empty, unclean, and lacking proof of income; Mother completed some services but refused or failed to complete much of her service plan (including ongoing drug testing and treatment).
The children were placed with relatives and described by the caseworker and attorney ad litem as healthy, happy, and well-adjusted; DFPS relied on statutory predicate grounds and the best-interest standard in ordering termination.
Mother appealed only the best-interest finding, arguing the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to show termination was in the children’s best interest.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DFPS Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the district court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest	The evidence was insufficient to show termination served the children’s best interest	Clear-and-convincing evidence showed ongoing drug use, refusal/insufficient completion of services, unstable housing/income, and that children were thriving in placement	Affirmed — evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support best-interest finding

In re E.N.C., [citation="384 S.W.3d 796"] (Tex. 2012) (requires clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., [citation="96 S.W.3d 256"] (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency review framework in termination appeals)
In re N.G., [citation="577 S.W.3d 230"] (Tex. 2019) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
In re C.H., [citation="89 S.W.3d 17"] (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors and best-interest analysis)
Holley v. Adams, [citation="544 S.W.2d 367"] (Tex. 1976) (enumerates factors for child’s best interest)
In re R.R., [citation="209 S.W.3d 112"] (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping child with parent is in child’s best interest)
In re M.R., [citation="243 S.W.3d 807"] (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (parental drug use and failure to follow service plan support termination)
In re M.V.G., [citation="440 S.W.3d 54"] (Tex. App.—Waco 2010) (supports that evidence proving statutory grounds may also show best interest)