in the Interest of J.H., 09-15-00171-CV

J.H., born ~2008, was originally removed from Mother (R.H.) in 2010 after CPS reports of neglect (drug in diaper bag, medical neglect, unexplained injuries, supervision concerns); relatives were later appointed conservators.
J.H. was returned to relatives but removed again in 2013 after allegations the relatives could no longer care for him; the Department was appointed temporary managing conservator.
Mother was ordered to complete a service plan (counseling, parenting classes, drug testing, stable housing, employment) but failed to provide proof of completion for multiple requirements.
Supervised visits between Mother and J.H. were inconsistent; Mother missed multiple visits, sometimes appeared to sleep through visits, and visits were suspended in Sept. 2014; Mother did not seek reinstatement.
CPS caseworker and CASA testified Mother did not demonstrate an ability to protect J.H. or provide stability; both concluded termination was in the child’s best interest; Father voluntarily relinquished his rights.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered services where child removed for abuse/neglect and in DFPS custody 9+ months) and found termination was in J.H.’s best interest. Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Mother, R.H.)	Held
1) Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(O) termination (child removed due to abuse/neglect and parent failed to comply with court-ordered services)	Evidence of Mother’s prior 2010 removal for neglect, 2013 removal, unchallenged removal findings, and Mother’s failure to complete ordered services support termination.	Mother contended the 2013 removal was because relatives could no longer care for J.H., not because of abuse/neglect tied to her, so §161.001(1)(O) was not satisfied.	Affirmed: Court found prior 2010 neglect removal and consolidation supported a finding that the child had been removed for abuse/neglect and Mother failed to comply with court-ordered actions.
2) Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest	Testimony (CPS, CASA) showed lack of stability, missed visits harming J.H., failure to protect and prioritize child’s needs, and need for permanency — supporting best-interest finding.	Mother argued J.H. desired contact with her, her chronic illness limited participation in services, and there was no proof the parent–child relationship was improper.	Affirmed: Court held evidence (Holley factors via testimony and affidavits) was legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in J.H.’s best interest.

In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (termination requires at least one statutory ground plus best-interest proof)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and sufficiency review framework for termination findings)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (affidavit evidence of abuse/neglect with unchallenged removal findings can establish Chapter 262 removal)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive list of factors for best-interest analysis)
In re D.R.H., 395 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (parent whose conduct did not directly cause removal still subject to §161.001(1)(O) analysis)
In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (similar principle regarding who triggered removal and applicability of subsection (O))