S. S. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-17-00451-CV

Department sought termination of S.S.’s parental rights to two children (age 14 and 4) based on parental drug use, domestic violence, neglect, and related endangerment.
Case tried to the bench; both parents executed affidavits relinquishing parental rights during trial and the court took judicial notice of those affidavits.
Evidence at trial: mother (H.T.) testified S.S. physically abused her, provided methamphetamine, and left the children without care; CPS investigator corroborated domestic violence and reported S.K.S.’s knowledge of parental drug use.
Counselor testified S.K.S. suffers reactive attachment disorder, was exposed to pornographic material by his father, and expressed he did not want further contact with S.S.
Department caseworker testified S.S. failed to complete court-ordered services (including drug testing) and that the younger child was bonded to foster family seeking adoption; permanency concerns emphasized.
Trial court found termination was in the children’s best interest; S.S. appealed asserting legal and factual insufficiency of the best-interest finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Whether evidence is legally sufficient to show termination is in children’s best interest	Evidence insufficient to establish best interest by clear and convincing proof	Affidavit of relinquishment plus testimony (domestic violence, drug use, neglect, child’s refusal) and permanency needs support best-interest finding	Affirmed: legally sufficient — factfinder could form firm belief termination served children’s best interest
Whether evidence is factually sufficient to show termination is in children’s best interest	Disputed facts (especially permanency for 14-yr-old) undermine confidence in finding	Disputed evidence outweighed by undisputed harms, child’s expressed wishes, and possibility of future adoption/permanence	Affirmed: factual sufficiency satisfied after exacting review; disputed evidence not so significant as to preclude firm belief

In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (parental-rights termination requires clear-and-convincing standard)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires heightened standard in termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (requirements for factual-sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parent–child relationship has constitutional dimensions)