in the Interest of B.R., Children, 456 S.W.3d 612

The accelerated appeal concerns termination of appellant mother’s parental rights to four children, with the Department seeking termination based on endangerment and noncompliance with a case plan.
The trial court terminated on grounds including endangerment and failure to comply with a court order, but the mother did not appear at the termination hearing.
The only witness at the termination hearing was a DFPS supervisor who testified about neglectful supervision in 2013, heroin found in a car, and the mother’s limited engagement with services.
Children were placed first with a maternal aunt and later with the maternal grandmother; the grandmother had little recent Department history presented and the court questioned but relied on the grandmother’s continued placement.
The Department acknowledged some service-plan steps by the mother but noted missing or incomplete items such as anger management, psychological evaluation, and drug testing, while the mother had not completed the entirety of her plan.
The court made findings under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D),(E),(O) and ordered termination, but the appellate court later reversed the termination regarding the mother’s rights and remanded with instructions consistent with best-interest review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children’s best interest?	Department argues best interest supports termination due to neglect, noncompliance, and safety concerns.	Appellant asserts insufficient evidence that termination serves the children’s best interests given lack of substantial proof of ongoing risk and adequate support.	No; the State failed to prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence.

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (established standard for sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (best-interest factors guide termination analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence may be probative of both grounds and best interest)
In re A.H., 414 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (conclusory testimony cannot substitute for substantial evidence)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (procedure when termination reversal occurs but conservatorship remains)
In the Int. of J.E.H., 384 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (judicial notice and evidentiary standards in appellate review)