in the Interest of K.P.N., D.F.N., and S.H.N., 04-21-00184-CV

Texas DFPS filed for protection and termination on September 4, 2019; children were removed and the Department was made temporary managing conservator while P.N. was ordered to follow a service plan (psych/psychiatric evaluation, counseling, parenting classes, drug/alcohol assessments).
Permanency hearings found P.N. noncompliant with her service plan; the Department ultimately pursued termination under Family Code §161.001(b)(1) statutory grounds.
A four-day bench trial heard testimony from counselors, DFPS caseworkers, CASA, fictive kin, the father, and P.N.; the court terminated P.N.’s parental rights and found termination was in the children’s best interests.
Key adverse facts for P.N.: longstanding methamphetamine use (admitted use while children were in the home and within a month of trial), discharge from inpatient treatment and drug court for noncompliance, refusal to return to inpatient treatment, and revocation of release preventing DFPS verification of outpatient completion.
Children (ages 16, 15, and 13) told counselors, caseworkers, and the CASA they did not want contact with P.N., experienced anxiety and sleep problems about returning to her, and stated they felt safer with their fictive kin placement.
P.N. had unstable housing and no employment, failed to enroll the children in school for about two years before removal; children had been placed with fictive kin since January 2020 and were reported to be doing well.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in the children’s best interests	P.N.: children’s stated desires controlled; DFPS blocked family therapy; she completed individual therapy, outpatient treatment, and parenting classes and was not afforded opportunity to complete service plan	State: P.N. is a habitual methamphetamine user who failed to complete required inpatient treatment or maintain sobriety, revoked verification of outpatient completion, has unstable housing and failed to enroll children in school; children fear her and want no contact	Court: Affirmed — evidence was both legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding and termination of parental rights

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in termination cases)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (Department must prove statutory grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive best-interest factors)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (proof of statutory ground is probative on best-interest issue)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (factual-sufficiency review requires weighing all evidence)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder on credibility in sufficiency review)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual-sufficiency principles and appellate deference)
In re S.J.R.-Z., 537 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (termination implicates fundamental rights; strict scrutiny of proceedings)
In re R.S.-T., 522 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (presumption that maintaining parent–child relationship is in child’s best interest)
In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (parental drug use and failure to comply with plan support best-interest finding)