in the Interest of D.T.C.L. and B.J.K., 04-15-00404-CV

Mother (L.W.) had two children: D.L. (removed April 2014, age 2 at trial) and B.K. (born Aug. 2014, ten months at trial). D.L. was removed for domestic violence and drug use in the home; B.K. tested positive for methamphetamines shortly after birth.
The Department prepared service plans; Mother failed to complete required services (counseling, drug treatment, domestic violence class) and continued to test positive for methamphetamines near trial.
Mother’s visitation was sporadic and limited (D.L.: four visits; B.K.: two visits since Jan. 2015); she lacked stable housing and employment.
Both children were placed with relatives who planned to adopt if parental rights were terminated; the caseworker testified he lacked confidence Mother could provide a safe, stable home.
At bench trial Mother admitted recent methamphetamine use, was enrolled in a treatment program, but conceded relapse occurs and asked for more time; the trial court terminated her parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(N),(O),(P) (as to D.L. only for some grounds) and found termination was in the children’s best interest.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support that termination was in children’s best interest	Evidence was insufficient; testimony on many best-interest factors lacked credibility or detail; Mother had begun treatment and requested more time	Caseworker testimony of ongoing drug use, failure to complete services, inconsistent visitation, lack of stable housing/employment, and children thriving with relatives supported best interest	Court affirmed: evidence (viewed in favor of finding) supported firm belief termination served children’s best interest

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (burden and elements for parental-rights termination)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency standards under clear-and-convincing evidence)
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 C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors need not all be proven; single factor can suffice)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (enumeration of best-interest factors)
In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (permitting consideration of circumstantial evidence and past conduct when assessing best interest)