in the Interest of E.J.E., J.J.E., J.N.E., and L.A.E., Children, 04-17-00129-CV

Background

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed three children (ages 15, 13, and 8) after a referral revealed a home with no running water, trash, used diapers and feminine products, feces smeared in the bathroom, and strong odors; parents tested positive for controlled substances at removal.
The children had unmet medical needs while in parental care: one child with diabetes received medication only intermittently, another had high blood pressure, and a teenage child had unresolved bedwetting until treated after removal; the children also missed nearly a year of school prior to removal.
The Department placed the children with paternal relatives, later began proceedings for adoption by a paternal great-aunt and her husband, and sought termination of parental rights for A.E. and the children’s father.
A.E. struggled with serious personal health issues (end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis), which she sometimes skipped, resulting in repeated hospitalizations and preventing consistent engagement in drug testing and services; A.E. also had an ongoing relationship with the father despite a history of domestic violence.
A.E. did not complete her full service plan (including domestic-violence programming and drug treatment); the Department provided in‑home counseling after she obtained stable housing but the trial court found continuing concerns about A.E.’s ability to care for the children.
At a bench trial the court terminated A.E.’s parental rights to J.J.E., J.N.E., and L.A.E.; A.E. appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show termination of A.E.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest	A.E. argued the evidence was insufficient to prove termination was in the children’s best interest	The Department argued the children’s medical and educational needs were unmet in parental care, A.E. failed services, had unstable/unsafe living conditions, ongoing relationship with an abusive/using father, and the children improved in Department care and had relatives available to adopt	Court affirmed: evidence (including medical neglect, unsanitary home, school absence, incomplete services, domestic violence risk, and children’s improvement in care) was clear and convincing to support best-interest finding

Key Cases Cited

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (statutory requirements for termination and clear-and-convincing standard)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (predicate grounds may support best-interest analysis)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (considering past conduct to predict future parenting)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (deference to factfinder on credibility and weight)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in the child’s best interest balanced against child safety)
In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (children’s improvement in foster care supports best-interest finding)
In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (failure to comply with service plan supports termination)