in the Interest of M.M. and E.L., Children, 02-21-00185-CV

Background

In August 2017 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed to terminate Mother's rights to Ann; a separate petition for Beth followed in May 2018. The cases were consolidated in March 2020.
January–May 2019 agreed orders placed both children with Maternal Aunt as nonparent permanent managing conservator and left Mother as possessory conservator.
Maternal Aunt filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights in November 2020; after a bench trial in March 2021 the trial court terminated Mother’s rights to Ann and Beth under multiple statutory grounds, including Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), and found termination was in the children’s best interest.
Evidence included Mother’s admitted long‑term methamphetamine and cocaine use (positive tests in 2017 and a relapse in Sept. 2020), prior probation violation, and criminal history involving assault family violence; Mother admitted she facilitated prohibited contact between the children and Father/Paternal Grandparents contrary to the agreed order.
Children had been in Maternal Aunt’s care since infancy; Maternal Aunt had provided stability and sought permanent placement. Mother had multiple clean tests after 2019 but relapsed in September 2020 and had ongoing legal exposure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court erred by considering Mother’s testimony that she violated court orders	Mother: Court improperly relied on testimony about violating orders that she contends did not exist, violating due process	Maternal Aunt/State: Mother repeatedly admitted helping Father and Paternal Grandparents violate the January 2019 agreed order; no trial objection preserved this complaint	Court: No error—Mother’s testimony was admissible, and appellate complaint did not comport with any trial objection; issue overruled
2. Legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support termination grounds (including §161.001(b)(1)(E))	Mother: Evidence insufficient to prove any statutory ground for termination	Maternal Aunt/State: Mother’s ongoing drug addiction, relapse after agreed orders, and exposure to family violence established an endangering course of conduct under (E)	Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient under §161.001(b)(1)(E); other grounds need not be addressed
3. Legal and factual sufficiency of evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest	Mother: Termination not shown to be in children’s best interest given some clean tests and participation in programs	Maternal Aunt/State: Children need permanence and stability; Maternal Aunt already provided caregiving and Mother posed relapse and safety risks	Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in the children’s best interest under §161.001(b)(2)

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires heightened standard to terminate parental rights)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination of parental rights is an extraordinary measure)
In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (fundamentally fair procedures required in termination proceedings)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal‑sufficiency standard in termination cases; review for firm belief or conviction)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual‑sufficiency standard and Holley factor guidance)
Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (appellate complaints must comport with trial objections)
In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (appellate review requirements when termination is based on (D) or (E))
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (drug use and exposure to family violence can constitute endangerment)