T. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 431 S.W.3d 645

T.W. appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to A.R.W. and involves a prior termination of his rights to A.R.W.’s sister in 2011.
A.R.W. came into DFPS care in July 2012 after being removed from her paternal aunt’s home due to drug use and neglectful supervision; T.W. had never lived with A.R.W., leaving her with his sister since birth.
T.W. failed to complete his service plan, was inconsistent with visitation, and admitted not fulfilling all court-ordered parenting requirements, while he later faced incarceration and probation issues.
The Department considered the paternal aunt as a potential placement but found her unsuitable; A.R.W. was placed with her sibling in June 2013 for permanency.
A.R.W. is bonded to her current foster family, referred to the foster mother as “mom,” and wants to remain with them; the Department seeks termination and adoption by the foster family.
The trial court found clear and convincing evidence under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D),(E),(M),(N),(O) and that termination is in A.R.W.’s best interests; this court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fifth Amendment inference in best interest ruling	T.W. argues the equal inference rule should apply and negative inferences from self-incrimination should not support best interests.	Department contends the equal inference rule is inapplicable and direct evidence supports the best-interest finding.	Issue One overruled; best interest found supported by direct evidence.
Exclusion of evidence about paternal aunt placement	T.W. contends exclusion of placement-evidence to support reunification deprived his defense on best interests.	Department argues no duty to consider alternatives to termination; exclusion not harmful.	Issue Two overruled; no reversible error; focus is on child’s best interest.
Legal sufficiency of best-interest finding	T.W. asserts the evidence does not show termination is in A.R.W.’s best interests.	Department asserts Holley factors support termination; evidence shows absence of suitable parental plan and danger to child.	Issues Three and Four overruled; evidence legally and factually sufficient for best interest finding.

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (grave-matter standard; strict scrutiny of termination)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing termination; factual sufficiency framework)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (treatment of standards; deference to fact finder)
Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. 2001) (equal inference rule in termination cases)
Edwards v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 946 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997) (relationship between termination and reunification; focus on child)
Navarrete v. Texas Dep’t of Human Res., 669 S.W.2d 849 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1984) (no duty to consider alternatives to termination)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors; non-exhaustive list for best interests)
In re A.L., 389 S.W.3d 896 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (placement considerations; relative vs non-relative)
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings; harm required)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factually and legally sufficient analysis for termination)
In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2002) (evidence sufficiency; Rule 44.1 considerations)