in the Interest of L. M. M. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 01-16-00961-CV

L.M.M., born Sept. 2014, suffered extensive, multi‑stage injuries (multiple subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhage, ~20 fractures of varying ages, feeding tube, permanent impairments) and was hospitalized in April–May 2015; Texas Children’s characterized injuries as nonaccidental.
The Department removed L.M.M. and placed him with maternal relatives (Steven and Judith), who provide specialized, continuous care and seek to adopt.
Mother was L.M.M.’s primary caregiver for much of the period before hospitalization; he was sometimes left with various family members and other caretakers.
Mother completed court‑ordered services (psychological evaluation, parenting classes, counseling) but disputed knowledge of the cause of the injuries and at times gave inconsistent statements to investigators.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly allowing child to remain in endangering conditions) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; Mother appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding clear and convincing evidence Mother knowingly allowed L.M.M. to remain in an endangering environment and that termination was in the child’s best interest.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s / Respondent’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency under §161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly allowed child to remain in endangering conditions)	Evidence insufficient because Mother sought medical care for some complaints and doctors did not diagnose abuse earlier; she denies knowing injuries were caused by abuse.	Unexplained, non‑accidental fractures and multiple injuries of varying ages while Mother was primary caregiver support inference she knew or recklessly disregarded danger; credibility issues (inconsistent statements, lies).	Affirmed: evidence clear and convincing that Mother knowingly allowed L.M.M. to remain in an endangering environment.
Best interest under §161.001(b)(2)	Mother completed services, has family support, and wants custody or joint conservatorship; claims she can care for L.M.M.	Child has severe, permanent needs needing constant skilled care; current caregivers provide stable, bonded, trained, adoptive placement; Mother lacks demonstrated ability to meet intensive needs.	Affirmed: termination is in child’s best interest.

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (heightened proof required before involuntary termination)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard that termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal‑sufficiency standard in parental‑termination cases)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (consider all evidence, not only that supporting the verdict)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (seeking medical care does not preclude finding parent knowingly permitted dangerous environment)
In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (unexplained fractures of various ages support inference caregiver knew of injuries)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual‑sufficiency standard under clear and convincing evidence)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring preservation of parent‑child relationship)
In re C.T.E., 95 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (State need not prove every best‑interest factor when parental relationship endangers child)