in the Interest of M.M.S. and C.E.S., Children, 07-16-00271-CV

Mother E.S. has a long history of methamphetamine use, prior drug convictions, and prior child-protective involvement (including an Oklahoma case). Children M.M.S. (born 2009, with chronic lung problems and developmental delay) and C.E.S. (born 2011, anger issues) were removed after an October 2014 incident in which the mother's boyfriend assaulted her and both parents tested positive for controlled substances; M.M.S.’s hair test was methamphetamine‑positive.
The Department filed for termination December 30, 2014. At trial the court found statutory grounds under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P) (endangerment, placing with endangering persons, failure to comply with court-ordered reunification plan, and parental drug use).
E.S. conceded (did not appeal) the predicate findings and appealed only the best‑interest finding as legally and factually insufficient.
Trial evidence: E.S. continued methamphetamine use during the case, failed to complete required psychological evaluation and recommended treatment, had multiple pending criminal charges and periods of incarceration, failed to supervise M.M.S.’s medical care, and proposed uncertain, impractical plans for the children.
Children were placed in specialized foster care addressing their special needs; trial court found termination in their best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in children’s best interest	E.S.: evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support best‑interest finding	Department/State: predicate findings plus Holley factors (endangerment, instability, failed services, ongoing drug use) support best interest	Court affirmed: evidence both legally and factually sufficient to support best interest

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but subject to strict scrutiny in termination proceedings)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required in parental termination cases)
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (termination proceedings must be strictly scrutinized)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (proof of statutory ground and best interest are separate requirements; Holley factors guide best-interest analysis)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (explains legal-sufficiency review under clear-and-convincing standard)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive list of factors to determine best interest)
In re R.D.S., 902 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995) (clarifies proof need not negate all reasonable doubt)
In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (past conduct may be used to predict future parental conduct)