in the Interest of L.A., a Child, 02-16-00403-CV

Mother (28) had six children; L.A. was the youngest (~2 at trial). L.A. tested positive for morphine and cocaine at birth. Mother admitted drug use (heroin, cocaine, morphine) and tested positive for drugs during the case.
The Department opened an investigation and placed the children in a Parental Child Safety Placement (PCSP) with Mother’s parents; Mother was allowed supervised daytime contact but not overnight custody.
PCSP required drug/alcohol assessment, counseling, parenting classes, and random drug tests; Mother largely failed to comply (missed assessments, stopped counseling, refused many drug tests, missed visits).
Mother absconded with three youngest children (including L.A.) in April 2015 in violation of the plan; she was difficult to contact, and Department later discovered neglectful conditions (children with lice, infected insect bites) when located.
In October 2015 the Department was appointed temporary managing conservator and took the children into custody; L.A. was placed with a foster family and was thriving by trial (October 2016).
Trial court found grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and that termination was in L.A.’s best interest; Mother appealed on four issues and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
1) Removal at temporary orders hearing	Removal was improper because affidavits admitted contained hearsay and lacked predicate	Temporary orders are not appealable; trial court properly issued orders under Fam. Code §262.205	Court: No jurisdiction to review temporary orders; issue overruled
2) Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(D) (placing child in dangerous conditions)	Evidence insufficient to show Mother knowingly placed L.A. in endangering conditions	Record shows drug-exposed birth, continued substance use, neglectful home conditions and absconding	Court: Did not reach merits because other ground (O) sufficed; issue overruled
3) Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (engaging in conduct endangering child)	Evidence insufficient to show Mother or persons she placed child with engaged in endangering conduct	Department relied on Mother’s drug use, failure to protect, and family’s neglectful conditions	Court: Did not reach merits because other ground (O) sufficed; issue overruled
4) Best-interest finding under §161.001(b)(2)	Termination not in child’s best interest; Mother could care for child if given chance	Mother continued substance use, failed to comply with services, missed visits; L.A. thriving in foster home	Court: Evidence (Holley factors) supports best-interest finding; issue overruled

In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (procedural due process and scrutiny in termination proceedings)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (strict construction of termination statutes; burden and standards)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (nature of parental rights and required procedural protections)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened burden in termination proceedings)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley-factor framework for best-interest analysis)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground plus best interest needed to support termination)