in the Interest of O.N.H., Children, 401 S.W.3d 681

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services obtained temporary managing conservatorship of O.N.H. and D.H. in 2010; reunification efforts followed for about 18 months.
A bench trial on termination of parental rights occurred in four settings between June and December 2012, resulting in termination of parental rights for Donnie H. and Susana H.; Susana did not appeal.
Susana’s severe and persistent alcoholism was central to the case, with evidence she drank during pregnancies and when caring for the children, including E.H.’s death possibly linked to cosleeping with intoxicated parents.
Donnie tolerated and enabled Susana’s drinking, failed to consistently separate from her, and admitted to leaving children with Susana during work shifts despite concerns for safety.
Donnie’s non-compliance with the service plan (protecting children, prioritizing their needs, attending therapy, and demonstrating parenting while addressing domestic violence) weighed against him.
The trial court found that termination was in the children’s best interest; the appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence supported the best-interest finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was termination in the children's best interest supported by the evidence?	Donnie argues best interests weighed against termination.	State contends termination necessary due to endangerment and lack of protective conduct.	Yes; evidence supports best-interest finding.
Did the State prove the statutory grounds under 161.001(1) to support termination?	Donnie contends acts were not proven or were not current in best interest.	State asserts proven acts sufficiently showed risk and failure to comply with court orders.	Yes; evidence supported the acts and termination.
Did Donnie’s toleration of Susana’s alcoholism and failure to protect the children outweigh other factors?	Donnie’s behavior shows inability to protect children from foreseeable harm.	Donnie made efforts to learn about alcoholism and reduce risk; some progress shown.	Yes; overall, Donnie’s toleration and lack of decisive protection supported termination.

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors for termination)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. 2002) (non-exhaustive best-interest factors; some factors need not be proven)
In re W.C., 98 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (evidence of support systems and ongoing risk factors)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard review)
Edwards v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 946 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (consideration of endangerment due to domestic issues)
In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (addressing how past conduct informs future risk)
Phillips v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 25 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (describing weight of child desires in best-interest analysis)
In re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (considerations on sustained dependency and safety)