in the Interest of T.M. and E. M., Children, 01-16-00942-CV

In June 2014 DFPS removed two daughters, Theresa (age 3) and Emma (age 1), after police found cocaine in E.M.’s vehicle, Xanax on his person, and evidence of domestic violence and a filthy apartment; children were placed in foster care in May 2015.
The Department created a family service plan requiring psychosocial and substance assessments, domestic-violence classes, drug testing, stable housing and proof of income, parenting classes, and monthly contact with the caseworker.
E.M. was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, served jail time, and later produced multiple positive drug tests (hair and urine) for cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines and other substances between 2014–2016.
E.M. demonstrated inconsistent compliance with services: completed some classes and assessments but missed visits, provided unverifiable housing and limited proof of income, had continued positive drug tests, and had an August 2016 theft arrest.
The children received speech and occupational therapy while in care, are bonded to their foster/adoptive family, and the Department sought termination of parental rights; the trial court terminated E.M.’s rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest.
On appeal E.M. conceded the predicate statutory grounds were supported but challenged the factual sufficiency of the best-interest finding; the First Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence is factually sufficient to support that termination of E.M.’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest	E.M.: the best-interest finding is factually insufficient given some mitigating evidence (declining drug levels, a negative June 2016 test, parental visits, and his stated plans)	DFPS: evidence (repeated positive drug tests, conviction, domestic-violence report, unstable housing, poor plan compliance, children’s needs and bonding to foster family) supports best interest	Affirmed — the appellate court held the evidence is factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process protections and high standard for involuntary termination)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exclusive factors for best‑interest analysis)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and factual-sufficiency review guidance)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground plus best interest required to support termination)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence supporting statutory grounds may also support best-interest finding)