There was also no evidence presented at trial that mother ever used narcotics in the presence of the children or while she was caring for them, that mother was impaired while caring for the children due to narcotics use, or that narcotics had been accessible to the children while they had been in mother's care. See In re M.A.J., 612 S.W.3d at 414-15; see also In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 434-35 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (although parent tested positive for narcotics use, holding evidence factually insufficient to support trial court's determination termination of parental rights in best interest of child); Ruiz v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 212 S.W.3d 804, 818 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding evidence insufficient to support trial court's finding that parent engaged in conduct which endangered child's physical or emotional well-being where evidence of parent's narcotics use was "extremely limited" and no evidence showed parent used narcotics while caring for child or when she was in child's presence).

There was also no evidence presented at trial that mother ever used narcotics in the presence of the children or while she was caring for them, that mother was impaired while caring for the children due to narcotics use, or that narcotics had been accessible to the children while they had been in mother's care. See In re M.A.J., 612 S.W.3d at 414-15; see also In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 434-35 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (although parent tested positive for narcotics use, holding evidence factually insufficient to support trial court's determination termination of parental rights in best interest of child); Ruiz v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 212 S.W.3d 804, 818 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding evidence insufficient to support trial court's finding that parent engaged in conduct which endangered child's physical or emotional well-being where evidence of parent's narcotics use was "extremely limited" and no evidence showed parent used narcotics while caring for child or when she was in child's presence).

Notably, F.C. tested positive for cocaine use only once during the entire pendency of the case.Cf. In re J.N. , 301 S.W.3d 429, 434–35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (finding evidence insufficient to support trial court's finding termination of parental rights in best interest of child, despite parent testing positive for narcotics on two separate occasions). While any narcotics use by a parent is certainly not desirable, there is no evidence that F.C. was addicted to narcotics, had a history of narcotics use, or was ever convicted of a criminal offense related to the possession of or use of narcotics.Cf.

When questioned by the trial court on the issue of V.D.Y.'s safety, the caseworker expressed concern that V.D.Y. would be at risk for abuse and neglect because of Appellant's past behavior as evidenced by his conviction. Relying on In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. denied),among other cases, Appellant argues that because V.D.Y.'s mother's parental rights were not terminated, termination of his rights does not advance the Department's goal of prompt and permanent placement of a child. Although we agree with Appellant's interpretation of our decision in In re J.N., we disagree that under the facts of this case, the evidence is insufficient to support the best interest finding.

And, although "the Department need not prove definitive plans for the child's placement," we also must keep in mind the "strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping custody in the natural parent." In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 435 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (citing In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 641 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied)). We recognize that we must give due deference to the jury's factual determinations.

In our factual sufficiency analysis, we must view the evidence in a neutral light. In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 431-32 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. denied); In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. App.-Waco 2006, pet. denied); Hampton v. Tex. Dep't of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 138 S.W.3d 564, 566-67 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.). However, we must give due deference to the factfinder's findings and not supplant its decision with our own.

Narcotics use by a parent is not desirable. SeeIn re C.V.L. , 591 S.W.3d at 756 (agreeing parent's narcotics use constituted adverse factor to be considered in best-interest analysis); see alsoIn re J.N. , 301 S.W.3d 429, 433–35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (although parent tested positive for narcotics use, holding evidence factually insufficient to support trial court's finding that termination of parental rights in best interest of child). But at the time that the trial court terminated their parental rights, mother and father had not tested positive for narcotics use or alcohol use for a significant amount of time, and they had been actively engaged in programs to help with their substance-abuse issues.

Narcotics use by a parent is certainly not desirable. SeeIn re C.V.L. , 591 S.W.3d 734, 756 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. denied) (agreeing parent's narcotics use constituted factor to be considered in best-interest analysis); see alsoIn re J.N. , 301 S.W.3d 429, 434–35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (although parent tested positive for narcotics use, holding evidence factually insufficient to support trial court's determination termination of parental rights in best interest of child). However, there is no evidence that mother used narcotics in the presence of the children or while she was caring for them.

Other courts have held similarly when addressing cases seeking termination of parental rights involving children with behavioral issues and a lack of evidence to demonstrate an improved benefit toward stability and future plans for potential adoptability. See In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 434-35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (acknowledging that the Department is not required to provide "definitive plans" for the child's future but holding there was no "compelling benefit" by severing parents' parental rights to the child); see also In re Z.B., No. 07-16-00026-CV, 2016 WL 3922936, at *18-20 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July, 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding evidence was factually insufficient to show best interest when the Department failed to establish that aparent was unfit and "[c]onsidering that there was no foreseeable adoption for the children and no chance of a permanent and stable home on the horizon, the Department's action to irrevocably terminate [father's] relationship with his children was an extreme measure"); Gibbs v. Tex. Dep't of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-11-00320-CV, 2012 WL 2979048, at *12 (Tex. App.—Austin July 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (ruling evidence was factually insufficient to terminate parent's rights because of "overwhelming weight of the evidence, mostly through u

Narcotics use by a parent is certainly not desirable. See In re C.V.L., No. 05-19-00506-CV, --- S.W.3d ---, 2019 WL 6799750, at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 13, 2019, pet. filed) (agreeing parent's narcotics use constituted factor to be considered in best-interest analysis); see also In re J.N., 301 S.W.3d 429, 434-35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (although parent tested positive for narcotics use, holding evidence factually insufficient to support trial court's determination termination of parental rights in best interest of child). However, there is no evidence in the record that mother used narcotics in the presence of the children or while she was caring for them.