in the Interest of J.L.B., 04-17-00364-CV

Background

Department removed two children (J.L.B., born drug-exposed, and K.R.B.) after verified referrals: J.L.B. tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at birth and exhibited withdrawal; K.R.B. was removed after a DEA raid at Father’s residence where drug distribution evidence was found.
Parents had prior Department involvement; K.R.B. had previously been with the paternal grandmother due to parents’ drug issues.
Temporary orders placed the Department as temporary managing conservator; children ultimately placed in foster care and later in a foster-to-adopt home.
Both parents faced ongoing criminal charges and periods of incarceration during the case; Mother admitted drug use during pregnancy and had multiple recent drug arrests; Father was arrested for possession with intent and had a history of violent and drug-related offenses.
Both parents failed to complete required services (drug treatment, parenting classes, counseling) and missed drug tests and appointments; visits were limited or unauthorized and the children had bonded with the foster family.
Trial court terminated both parents’ rights under multiple Family Code subsections and found termination was in the children’s best interest; appellants appealed sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment)	Dept: Parents engaged in a voluntary, deliberate course of conduct (drug use, criminal activity, incarceration, unsafe home) that endangered children	Mother: Evidence insufficient to show deliberate course of conduct endangering children	Court: Affirmed—evidence (in utero drug exposure, parental arrests, home used for drug distribution, failures to comply with services) legally and factually sufficient to show endangerment
Whether evidence supports other statutory grounds for termination (D, N, O, P, R, Q)	Dept: Multiple statutory predicates support termination	Parents: Challenged sufficiency of evidence on those predicates	Court: Did not reach all predicates because one valid ground (E) was sufficient to affirm termination
Whether termination is in the children’s best interest	Dept: Holley factors (bonding with foster family, parents’ instability, criminality, drug use, failure to complete services, need for permanence) support termination	Parents: Argued plans and rehabilitation prospects (Mother in SAFPF, Father expected release) weigh against termination	Court: Affirmed—considering Holley factors, evidence was legally and factually sufficient that termination served children’s best interest
Whether the evidence is factually and legally sufficient under clear-and-convincing standard	Dept: Record as a whole meets clear-and-convincing standard	Parents: Disputed weight/credibility of evidence, arguing insufficiency	Court: Applied In re J.F.C. standards and concluded the disputed evidence did not preclude a firm conviction; sufficiency affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (two-part burden for termination: statutory ground and best interest)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency under clear and convincing evidence)
In re T.N.S., 230 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (endangerment requires voluntary, deliberate course of conduct)
In re S.M., 389 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (endangerment can be emotional and need not be directed at the child)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment exceeds metaphysical injury)
In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (criminal conduct and imprisonment relevant to endangerment)
In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (incarceration and parental conduct may support endangerment)
In the Interest of N.K., 99 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (danger inferred from parental misconduct)
In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (illegal drug use supports endangerment finding)
In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (bonding with foster caregiver relevant to best interest)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors not exhaustive; absence of evidence on some factors does not preclude best-interest finding)
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) (past conduct probative of future conduct for best-interest analysis)
Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (permanence is paramount in best-interest analysis)
In re M.A.N.M., 75 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (state interest in permanent home)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parent’s drug use may inform inability to meet child’s needs)