in the Interest of K.C., a Child, 10-16-00321-CV

Trial court terminated father B.W.’s parental rights to his son K.C. after a bench trial; B.W. appealed sole issue that termination was not shown to be in the child’s best interest.
Department removed K.C. (and siblings) following reports in late 2014 of neglectful supervision and parental drug use by the mother (F.C.) and another caregiver; temporary managing conservatorship granted Feb. 19, 2015.
B.W. had been convicted of burglary (May 2014 conviction, life sentence) and was incarcerated at the time of the termination proceeding; the judgment and appellate opinion affirming conviction were admitted into evidence.
Department and CASA witnesses testified B.W. had little contact with K.C., failed to complete the service plan, had not visited or maintained contact, and was not positioned to provide a safe home while incarcerated; the Department’s permanency plan was relative adoption with maternal grandmother as placement.
B.W. testified he loved K.C., had limited pre‑incarceration contact (partly due to F.C.), had fallen behind on child support, had limited ability to participate in services while incarcerated, and sought temporary custody for the grandmother pending his appeals or release.
The trial court found predicate statutory grounds for termination and, after applying Holley factors, concluded by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest; the appeals court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove termination was in child’s best interest	Dept./State: B.W.’s incarceration, lack of contact, failure to complete services, and need for permanency support termination	B.W.: He loves K.C., would support and parent if released, limited ability to comply due to incarceration and lack of timely notice, grandmother could be temporary custodian	Affirmed: Evidence (Holley factors) legally and factually sufficient to find termination in child’s best interest

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (lists factors for determining child’s best interest)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency review in termination proceedings)
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Swate v. Swate, 72 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002) (interpreting burden elements under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001)
In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (parental criminal conduct and incarceration relevant to child’s stability and best interest)
In re D.M., 58 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (parent’s history, admissions, and incarcerations relevant to best interest)
D.O. v. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs., 851 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993) (use of parent’s past inability to meet child’s needs in best-interest analysis)
In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (compare plans and stability when assessing permanency)