in the Interest of U.D.R. and J.T.F., Children, 04-16-00490-CV

Mother had prior involvement with the Department beginning in 2010; her parental rights to three other young children were terminated in 2011–2012 after allegations including drug use and domestic violence.
In March 2016 Mother gave birth to J.T.F.; the newborn tested positive for opiates and methamphetamines and was described as drug-addicted at birth.
About two months later Mother brought J.T.F. to the hospital with severe dermatitis; hospital staff observed Mother unable to stay awake and she later admitted recent illegal drug use (crystal meth). The Department removed J.T.F. and his older sister U.D.R. and placed them in foster care.
The Department created a reunification service plan requiring drug assessment/treatment, parenting classes, and therapy; Mother signed the plan but did not complete or engage in services and her whereabouts became unknown.
The Department moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (R) and § 161.001(b)(2). At a final hearing the trial court found the statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed only the best-interest sufficiency ruling.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove termination was in the children’s best interests under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(2)	The evidence did not establish by clear and convincing proof that termination was in the children’s best interests (Mother challenges only best-interest prong).	Evidence of newborn drug exposure, Mother’s recent drug admission, severe infant neglect markers (dermatitis), prior terminations, failure to participate in services, lack of contact/support, and current stable foster placement supported a finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.	Court affirmed: the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to permit a factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination served the children’s best interests.

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (sets out factors for best-interest analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors not exhaustive; parental endangerment can be dispositive)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for legal sufficiency review in parental-termination appeals)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (burden/standard for appellate review of parental termination: clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (clarifies best-interest and burden of proof principles)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (recognizes presumption favoring parent-child relationship but also the presumption that timely permanent placement in a safe environment is in child’s best interest)