in the Interest of J.K.L., J.A.L., and J.C.L., 04-16-00710-CV

In August 2015 police responded to domestic-violence incident at the children’s home; the youngest (12 months) was found with glass shards nearby and the mother had bruises. The Department opened a CPS case.
Father J.M.L. was arrested while on parole on November 9, 2015 for felony methamphetamine possession and remained incarcerated through trial. Mother was later incarcerated for drugs.
Children were first placed with their great-grandmother, then removed after suspected abuse there and placed in a foster-to-adopt home.
The Department filed to terminate parental rights of both parents; at a bench trial the court found statutory grounds for terminating J.M.L.’s rights (§161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O)). J.M.L. did not appeal those grounds.
At trial the Department’s caseworker, the foster mother, CASA, and the children’s attorney ad litem testified: J.M.L. had no contact, support, or visits while incarcerated; the foster family provided stable, bonded, and medically attentive care and wished to adopt.
The trial court terminated J.M.L.’s parental rights; he appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to show termination of J.M.L.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests under §161.001(b)(2)	J.M.L. contends evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard that termination was in the children’s best interests	Department, CASA, and ad litem argued the children’s current stable foster placement, J.M.L.’s incarceration, lack of contact/support/visits, and history of parole violation support that termination is in the children’s best interests	Court affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in children’s best interests (clear and convincing)

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency under clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same-evidence can be used to prove statutory grounds and best interest)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (factfinder is sole judge of witness credibility and weight)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley best-interest factors)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (application of Holley factors in termination cases)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual-sufficiency standard under clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (permitting inference of future conduct from past deliberate conduct in termination context)