in the Interest of L.T.B. and L.M.A., Children, 14-16-00384-CV

In April 2015 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) investigated reports that Mother (S.S.A.) physically disciplined and negligently supervised her daughters Lizzie (10) and Leigh (8); the children were removed and placed first with maternal grandparents and later in a foster home.
Mother submitted a urine sample that was not her own and later tested positive by hair follicle for cocaine and marijuana; she subsequently entered inpatient drug treatment, later relapsed, and had multiple positive drug tests in late 2015–early 2016.
Mother has a prior history of Department referrals and multiple criminal convictions and incarcerations, including drug-related offenses and thefts.
The trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence supporting termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), and (P) (endangerment, failure to comply with court order, and substance-abuse–related grounds) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court of appeals affirmed, relying principally on subsection (E) (endangerment) and holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support both the predicate finding and the best-interest determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for termination predicate(s) (§161.001(b)(1))	Evidence was insufficient to show a voluntary, deliberate course of conduct endangering the children or to support other predicate findings	Mother’s drug use, criminal history, deception about testing, unstable housing/employment, and failure to complete services established a course of conduct endangering the children	Affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient under subsection (E); court need not decide (O) or (P)
Sufficiency of evidence that termination is in children’s best interest	Termination is not justified; strong presumption favors keeping children with parent	Children were thriving in foster care; Mother’s relapse, incomplete services, instability, and history supported that termination served the children’s best interest	Affirmed: best-interest finding was legally and factually sufficient

In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (parental-rights termination implicates fundamental constitutional interests)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and review framework for termination findings)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (legal-sufficiency review in termination cases — consider evidence in light most favorable to the finding)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are not absolute; child’s safety may justify termination)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment inference from parental misconduct)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of endangerment as exposure to loss or injury)
In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (parental drug use and instability relevant to endangerment and best-interest analyses)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate plus best-interest finding required to support termination)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exclusive best-interest factors for termination cases)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring keeping child with parent and interplay with best-interest analysis)
In re A.B., 412 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (parental conduct causing instability/endangering child supports termination)