in the Interest of X.R.L., S.J.S., and Z.N.S., Children, 461 S.W.3d 633

Mother (pseudonym Evelyn) had three children (ages 5, 4, 2); two children’s father is Bradley (not father of the eldest). Children were removed in Oct. 2013 after reports of neglect, parental drug use, and being left with an unsuitable great-grandmother.
Evelyn admitted recent methamphetamine and synthetic marijuana use, tested positive for cocaine, meth, and marijuana at various times, missed several court-ordered random drug tests, and failed to complete required counseling and services.
The children were placed in foster care; one child (X.R.L.) exhibited severe behavioral/sexualized behavior and was placed in a therapeutic foster home and began counseling after an outcry against Bradley.
Evelyn had minimal visitation (2–3 of ~25–30 opportunities), inconsistent contact with the Department, no stable housing or employment, and offered no financial support for the children; no suitable relatives were identified for placement.
Trial court found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Evelyn appealed only the factual sufficiency of the best-interest finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence is factually sufficient to show termination is in children’s best interests	Evelyn argued the evidence did not rise to clear-and-convincing standard to show termination served the children’s best interests	Department argued Evelyn’s continuous drug use, instability, failure to comply with services, lack of visitation/support, and risk to children supported termination	Court held evidence was factually sufficient; termination in children’s best interests affirmed

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights are constitutionally protected and termination proceedings are strictly scrutinized)
In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (strict scrutiny of termination proceedings)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and factual-sufficiency review guidance)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing best-interest findings and consideration of evidence proving grounds)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (recognition of parents’ fundamental rights)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are a protected liberty interest)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (child’s interests are paramount over parental rights)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (children’s emotional and physical interests cannot be sacrificed to preserve parental rights)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive list of factors for best-interest analysis)