R. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-21-00342-CV

Child A.H. removed March 2020 after report of domestic violence in the home, presence of methamphetamine paraphernalia, and Mother’s admitted drug use.
Investigators observed bruising on Mother and learned Father had assaulted her; a protective order had been entered but Father returned to the home and Mother admitted continuing a relationship with him.
Service plan required supervised visits, weekly drug testing, substance-abuse assessment, psychological evaluation, and counseling; Mother completed many tasks but missed a psychological evaluation and later tested positive for cocaine (Jan. 2021).
Department reports and testimony described A.H. witnessing repeated, severe domestic violence, disclosure that Father taught self-harm, and concerns Mother continued associating with drug users and Father during the case.
An associate judge recommended termination on statutory grounds and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Mother requested a de novo hearing, which resulted in a trial-court decree terminating her parental rights.
Mother appealed, asserting the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to show termination is in A.H.’s best interest	Mother argued limited proof of the Holley factors: good visits, employment, clean home, most drug tests negative, substance-assessment required no treatment, and she intended to avoid Father	Department relied on unchallenged endangerment findings, Mother’s past and continued drug use, recurrent severe domestic violence witnessed by A.H., continued contact with Father, and the foster family’s adoption plans	Affirmed — evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in A.H.’s best interest

In re A.L.M.-F., 593 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. 2019) (limits on scope of de novo hearings from associate-judge recommendations)
In re S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. 2014) (statutory requirement for termination: clear and convincing proof of ground and best interest)
In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility and demeanor)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence supporting statutory grounds may also be probative of best interest)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (recent improvements do not necessarily negate probative value of a history of risky choices)
In re C.A.J., 122 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (parental drug use relevant to best-interest determination)
In re M.A.J., 612 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020) (post-referral positive drug tests can support endangerment and best-interest findings)