In the INTEREST OF P.R.W., a Child, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5202

Child (P.R.W.) was removed in Jan 2014 after Mother, later diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in records, behaved erratically (allegedly holding the child upside down) and tested positive for amphetamines; Department filed for conservatorship.
Child was placed with relatives M.S. and J.S.; Mother had supervised/unsupervised visits but tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana multiple times in 2014 and again showed inconsistent cooperation with drug screens.
In March 2015 the trial court found Mother had substantially complied with her service plan and ordered reunification; Child returned to Mother’s custody in April 2015.
In June 2015 Department removed Child again after an overdose call for Child, reports of Mother acting erratically, Mother’s failure to have Child’s asthma medication available, and an unknown, erratic-acting man (M.L.) in Mother’s apartment.
After a bench trial the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother committed statutory grounds for termination (including Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D)) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Legal and factual sufficiency of evidence that Mother knowingly placed/allowed child to remain in endangering conditions (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D))	Mother argued evidence was insufficient: improvement shown in 2015, compliance with service plan, lack of direct proof of ongoing medication noncompliance or that others (e.g., C.B., M.L.) harmed the child	Department argued Mother’s serious mental illness, history of holding child in dangerous manner, inconsistent medication use, multiple positive drug tests, failure to have asthma meds, and unstable living situation created an endangering environment	Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove endangerment under (D)
Legal and factual sufficiency that termination was in the child’s best interest (Holley factors)	Mother argued best-interest evidence was insufficient: reunification in March 2015 showed compliance, child bonded to Mother, lack of proof of ongoing noncompliance or long-term harm, and proposed Department placement was not demonstrably permanent	Department argued Holley factors favored termination: risk of recurrence from mental illness and medication noncompliance, past drug use, instability, failure to secure child’s medication, and plans/ability of relatives contrasted with Mother’s history	Court held evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination was in child’s best interest

In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard and constitutional importance of parental rights)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency under clear-and-convincing evidence)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (application of Holley factors and parental-presumption principles)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (standard for factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (endangerment inquiry focuses on child’s environment and parental conduct)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (past parental misconduct relevant to future risk)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (living conditions must be more than merely less-than-ideal to support termination)