in the Interest of J.H., A.H., J.H., L.H., and H.H., Children, 07-17-00307-CV

Background

Parents (Mother and Father) had five children (ages 2–7 at trial); CPS removed the children multiple times (first in 2011, returned in 2012; removed again in 2014 and later) for unsanitary home conditions and Father’s methamphetamine use.
Department developed family service plans requiring safe housing, stable employment, therapy, no drug/alcohol use, and reporting address changes; parents failed to complete several required services and moved without notice.
Evidence at removal/monitored return: no running water, cockroach infestation, children sleeping on the floor, severe diaper rash/dried feces, children unclean and smelling of mildew/smoke, insufficient food in refrigerator, and instances where parents delayed/failed to obtain medical care.
Father admitted to methamphetamine and marijuana use; Mother knew of Father’s marijuana use and expected it to continue; daycare once paid for extermination due to infestation.
Trial court terminated parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; Department appointed permanent managing conservator. Parents appealed sufficiency of evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support §161.001(b)(1)(D) endangerment finding (conditions/surroundings)	Department: unsanitary home, infestations, lack of running water, children unclean, medical neglect, parental drug use, failure to complete services support endangerment	Mother/Father: contested sufficiency; argued improvements and disputed some observations; challenged legal/factual sufficiency	Affirmed: evidence clear and convincing to support subsection (D); reasonable factfinder could form firm belief of endangerment
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (Holley factors)	Department: pattern of neglect, repeated removals, unstable housing/employment, medical neglect, drug use, inability to sustain improvements; children doing well in placements	Parents: argued children desired to return and parent-child bond; claimed improvement and completion of some services	Affirmed: totality of evidence supported finding termination was in children’s best interest
Whether other statutory grounds ((E) and (O)) were supported	Department alleged conduct/endangering placement and failure to comply with court-ordered services	Parents challenged those findings on sufficiency grounds	Court did not need to reach (E) and (O) after (D) and best-interest findings; termination upheld
Prejudice from Father’s absence at final hearing	Department noted Father did not attend; argued case against both parents supported by evidence	Father argued procedural prejudice from absence	Court noted absence is prejudicial but relied on admitted/uncontradicted evidence and testimony; termination sustained

Key Cases Cited

Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1976) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but not absolute)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (child’s interests can outweigh parental rights; best-interest analysis explained)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground plus best interest required for termination)
In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (standards for legal sufficiency in parental termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for factual sufficiency in parental termination cases)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of endangerment and inference of danger from parental misconduct)
In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (parental conduct before/after birth relevant to endangerment)
In re S.N., 272 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (parental drug use can support endangerment finding)
In re R.F., 115 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (failure to complete service plan probative in endangerment analysis)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for best-interest inquiry)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (strong presumption favoring keeping child with parent; Holley factors overview)
In re N.R.T., 338 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (best-interest may rely on totality of evidence)
In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (only one statutory ground required with best-interest finding)
In re J.D.S., 111 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (parental absence at trial is prejudicial)
May v. May, 829 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (past parental misconduct may indicate future conduct)