in the Interest of M.T.C. and J.R.T.C., 04-16-00548-CV

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed to terminate M.C.’s parental rights to two children, M.T.C. (age 3) and J.R.T.C. (age 1), after removal from the mother’s care for suspected drug use and related issues.
M.C. had a 2012 conviction for indecency with a child, is a lifetime registered sex offender on probation, and his probation prohibits being in the presence of children.
The mother tested positive for amphetamines at the birth of the younger child and has a history of methamphetamine use; she relapsed after treatment. The children were placed with the maternal aunt, who later sought to adopt them.
At trial the Department presented a single witness (caseworker Asta Bilderback); M.C. was represented by counsel but did not present witnesses or controverting evidence.
The trial court terminated M.C.’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering conditions); the Department conceded the other asserted statutory ground (O) was unsupported.
The court of appeals affirmed, finding the evidence (direct and circumstantial) legally and factually sufficient to show M.C. knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in an endangering environment.

Issue	Department's Argument	M.C.'s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to terminate M.C. under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly placed/allowed children to remain in endangering conditions)	Circumstantial and direct evidence showed M.C. knew of the mother’s drug addiction and relapse, remained in contact, fathered a child after removal, and his criminal history created instability that endangered the children	No evidence M.C. knew of mother’s drug use, no evidence he used drugs, and no evidence he was part of the children’s environment before removal	Affirmed: evidence (including circumstantial) was clear and convincing to support termination under (D)

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (clear-and-convincing standard required for involuntary termination)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency in termination appeals)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (circumstantial evidence can satisfy clear-and-convincing standard)
Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of endangerment and that parental misconduct can infer endangerment)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental conduct before birth or with older children relevant to endangerment)
In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (conduct causing instability endangers child)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (role of circumstantial evidence under heightened standards)