in the Interest of K.N.D., a Child, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10568

DFPS sought termination of A.D.’s parental rights to K.N.D. based on 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O); trial court relied solely on 161.001(l)(O) and appointed DFPS as sole managing conservator.
K.N.D. was born at 37 weeks after a domestic-violence incident; removal occurred under Chapter 262 with DFPS granted temporary managing conservatorship.
Evidence included a CPS investigation, caseworker testimony about A.D.’s unstable housing and employment, prior CPS history, and concerns about endangerment to the child.
A.D. did not attend the trial in person; the only live witness was the CPS caseworker who described domestic-violence history and parenting deficiencies.
The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in K.N.D.’s best interest and that A.D. failed to comply with a court order under §161.001(l)(O); DFPS was appointed sole managing conservator.
The Court of Appeals majority reversed the termination under §161.001(l)(O) for lack of evidence that the child was removed for abuse or neglect, but affirmed the DFPS sole-managing-conservator order; the dissent would affirm termination and challenge the majority’s interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence under 161.001(l)(O)	A.D. argues removal was not for abuse/neglect of K.N.D.; evidence is legally insufficient.	DFPS argues the removal and ongoing endangerment and noncompliance meet §161.001(l)(O) and best interest.	Evidence legally insufficient; reverse termination; render denial of termination
Conservatorship: DFPS as sole managing conservator	A.D. contends appointment as sole managing conservator is in KN.D.’s best interest and should be parent.	DFPS presented evidence of instability and endangerment, justifying non-parent conservatorship.	No abuse of discretion; appointment of DFPS as sole managing conservator affirmed

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (establishes termination standards and clear-and-convincing evidence requirements)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (defines evidentiary standards and scope for termination determinations)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (best-interest and termination framework; joint-conservatorship presumption)
In re J.O.A., 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. 2010) (endangerment and suitability considerations in termination cases)
In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (use of Chapter 262 history in evaluating later termination)
In re AAA, 265 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (evidentiary standards for abuse/neglect in termination context)
In re E.S.C., 287 S.W.3d 471 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (assessing evidence and standards in termination appeals)
In re E.C.R., 390 S.W.3d 22 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (discusses admissibility and sufficiency in termination review)
D.F. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 393 S.W.3d 821 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012) (comparative analysis of termination standards and procedures)
Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment meaning—expose to loss or injury)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (clear-and-convincing standard reiterated)