in the Interest of J.N.S. and S.A.L.T., Children, 13-17-00356-CV

Background

In Nov. 2015 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed children J.N.S. and S.A.L.T. from Mother and filed to terminate Mother's parental rights; temporary conservatorship was granted to the Department.
Concerns included Mother's cohabitation with Father (a registered sex offender), Mother's daily use of synthetic marijuana, instability in housing and employment, and an instance where Mother took the children from the maternal grandmother and refused to return them.
The Department implemented a family service plan; Mother made some progress (attended substance-abuse counseling, parenting classes, consistent visits) but did not complete substance-abuse or mental-health components, had a relapse before trial, and lacked stable housing or verifiable steady employment.
There was an outcry by child J.N.S. alleging sexual abuse by someone known to Mother, and testimony that Mother failed to act on that disclosure.
The children were placed with a foster mother and were reported to be thriving and bonded to her.
The trial court terminated Mother's rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Whether evidence legally/factually sufficient for §161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangerment by environment)	Mother argued evidence did not show she knowingly placed/allowed children to remain in endangering conditions	Department pointed to daily drug use, cohabitation with sex offender, unaddressed sexual-abuse outcry, mental-health instability, and Mother’s dishonesty and instability	Court held evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support (D); issue overruled
Whether evidence sufficient for (E) (endangerment by conduct)	Mother challenged sufficiency of other statutory predicates	Department relied on same facts (drug use, exposure to sex offender, failure to protect) to support additional subsections	Court did not reach these separately because (D) alone sufficed; Mother’s related issues not addressed on merits
Whether evidence sufficient for (N) and (O) (constructive abandonment; failure to comply with service plan)	Mother argued she made substantial progress and nearly completed plan	Department relied on incomplete counseling, lack of stable housing/employment, relapse, and prior exhausted resources	Court found one statutory ground (D) proved; did not need to adjudicate others but record supports findings in the trial court
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (Holley factors)	Mother argued her love, regular visitation, parenting during visits, and participation in programs weighed against termination	Department and CASA emphasized instability, ongoing risk from substance use, failure to address alleged sexual abuse, exhausted supports, and foster placement providing stability	Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; termination affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re D.S.P., 210 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (parental rights are constitutional and require due process)
In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency under clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re P.R.W., 493 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016) (endangerment-by-environment analysis)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of "endanger")
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exclusive list of factors for best-interest inquiry)