in the Interest of N.J.H., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 575 S.W.3d 822

DFPS removed infant N.J.H. (born 2016) after medical exams revealed ~15 fractures in different stages of healing; mother relinquished her rights and named E.D.B. (Father) after DNA excluded an earlier alleged father.
DFPS filed to terminate parental rights; paternity was established by court order and Father was placed on a family service plan requiring drug testing, therapy, and parenting services.
Father tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on November 9, 2017, and again positive for marijuana on February 15, 2018; he admitted prior regular marijuana use and completed services but had only one negative test before trial.
Father has a 2013 conviction for assault causing bodily injury to a family member (domestic violence). He visited the child twice after testing negative and had been employed; foster parents cared for N.J.H. for ~9 months and testified he was thriving and bonded with them.
Trial court terminated Father’s rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) and §161.001(b)(1)(H) (abandonment of mother during pregnancy), and found termination was in the child’s best interest; appeal contests sufficiency of evidence for endangerment, abandonment, and best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment)	Father’s ongoing illegal drug use and history of domestic violence created an endangering course of conduct exposing the child to harm	Father ceased use after DFPS got involved, completed services, had at least one negative test, and visited/ bonded with the child	Affirmed: evidence (positive drug tests, admissions, history) was legally and factually sufficient to show endangerment
Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(b)(1)(H) (abandonment of mother during pregnancy)	DFPS alleged Father abandoned mother during pregnancy and failed to support or remain with child after birth	Father says he separated when mother told him she was pregnant and had no further contact until notified by DFPS	Not reached on merits—court affirmed based on (E) and thus did not need to decide (H)
Whether termination was in the child’s best interest under §161.001(b)(2)	Stability, bonding with foster family, Father’s drug use and violence risk weigh against reunification; foster parents intend permanent care	Father argues preservation of parent-child relationship and that he improved/ can parent with more time	Affirmed: Holley factors support finding that termination is in child’s best interest

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional protection of parental rights)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (strict scrutiny of termination statutes)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict construction in favor of parents)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (one predicate finding plus best interest sufficient for termination)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (legal-sufficiency standard for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (parental illegal drug use can constitute endangerment)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (drug activity can constitute endangerment even if outside child’s presence)
Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (drug use exposes child to risk of impairment or imprisonment)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (endangerment inference from parental misconduct)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (factual-sufficiency review principles)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (factors for determining child’s best interest)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (consideration of service-plan compliance in best-interest analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (evaluation of disputed evidence in termination cases)