in the Interest of I.L.G., a Child, 531 S.W.3d 346

In 2015 the Department received referrals after Mother (then 16) assaulted maternal grandmother and ran away with infant Isaac; Isaac was left in grandmother’s care and later removed due to neglectful supervision.
Mother admitted marijuana use, later tested positive for marijuana and cocaine, missed numerous ordered drug tests, and failed to complete multiple court-ordered services (psychological/substance assessments, recommended treatment, stable housing/employment for six months, domestic-violence therapy).
Department filed suit in March 2016; Isaac was in Department custody for ~11 months and placed with relatives who wished to adopt; the Department sought termination and conservatorship.
At trial Mother testified she worked, completed some services, disputed some testing, and asked for time to reunify or placement with grandmother; child advocate and caseworker recommended termination based on safety, drug use, and failure to complete the plan.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O), found termination in Isaac’s best interest, and appointed the Department sole managing conservator; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds (161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O))	Evidence insufficient to support termination; she completed some services and disputed drug results	Evidence shows removal for neglect/abuse, positive drug tests, failure to complete court-ordered service plan and missed tests — supports (O) and (E)	Affirmed on (O): legally and factually sufficient to terminate under subsection (O); court declined to reach (E) because one predicate sufficed
Best interest of the child	Termination is not in Isaac’s best interest; Mother can provide home after repairs and work	Termination is in best interest due to drug use, instability, failure to complete services, and stable adoptive placement bonding	Affirmed: evidence (danger, noncompliance, stable placement) supports best-interest finding
Appointment of Department as managing conservator	Naming Department was error; Mother challenged conservatorship appointment	When parental rights terminated, Tex. Fam. Code § 161.207 requires appointing Department or suitable adult/agency	Affirmed: appointment of Department was required and not an abuse of discretion
Standard of review / burden	Challenges legal and factual sufficiency under heightened clear-and-convincing standard	Court applied clear-and-convincing burden and appropriate legal/factual sufficiency review rules	Court applied correct standard and affirmed findings

In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (legal standard for reviewing sufficiency under clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and reviewing factual sufficiency in parental termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are constitutional but not absolute; child’s interests paramount)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (use of removal evidence and service-plan noncompliance in termination analysis)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground under § 161.001 necessary with best-interest finding)
In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (weight of parental drug use in best-interest determinations)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (standard of review for appointing nonparent managing conservator)
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (recognition of fundamental parental rights implicated by termination)
In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (evidence supporting termination may also support best-interest finding)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of endangerment)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (deference to factfinder on credibility in termination cases)
In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003) (court will not reweigh credibility or rely on evidence the factfinder could reject)