See id. Evidence concerning subsections (D)'s and (E)'s statutory grounds for termination is interrelated; therefore, we will consolidate our review of the evidence supporting these grounds.See In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2013, no pet.); In re I.G., 383 S.W.3d 763, 770 n.6 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.).

Endanger means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment, but it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child suffer injury. In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 330-31 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2013, no pet.).

"Indeed, '[i]t is illogical to reason that inappropriate, debauching, unlawful, or unnatural conduct of persons who live in the home of a child, or with whom a child is compelled to associate on a regular basis in his home, are not inherently a part of the conditions and surroundings[ ] of that place or home.'" In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 330 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2013, no pet.); see also In re L.V., No. 13-10-283-CV, 2011 WL 676020, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that a parent's conduct in the home including illegal activity and drug use may cause an endangering environment for the children and holding that the "[a]ppellant's failure to take any action to protect his children from [the mother's] drug abuse is sufficient to establish that he knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical well-being"); In re H.M.A., No. 13-02-00286-CV, 2003 WL 22022009, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 28, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Environment . . . is not limited to a physical environment such as housing or living conditions. 'Conditions or surroundings' for purposes of section (D) include also the environment produced by the conduct of parents or others.").

Evidence concerning subsections (D)'s and (E)'s statutory grounds for termination is interrelated; therefore, we will consolidate our review of the evidence supporting these grounds.See In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, no pet.); In re I.G., 383 S.W.3d 763, 770 n.6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.).

Evidence concerning subsections (D)'s and (E)'s statutory grounds for termination is interrelated; therefore, we will consolidate our review of the evidence supporting these grounds. See In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2013, no pet.); In re I.G., 383 S.W.3d 763, 770 n. 6 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2012, no pet.).

See § 161.001(1)(D), (E). Evidence concerning subsections (D)'s and (E)'s statutory grounds for termination is interrelated; therefore, we will consolidate our review of the evidence supporting these grounds.See In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 329 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2013, no pet.); In re I.G., 383 S.W.3d 763, 770 n.6 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.). Endangerment of the child's physical or emotional well-being is an element of both subsections (D) and (E).

than-ideal family environment, but it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child suffer injury. In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 330-31 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2013, no pet.).

The Department points to multiple cases for the proposition that a parent's conduct need not be directed at the child to constitute endangerment yet may still showcase a pattern of conduct which would be ill-disposed to child-rearing. Among those cases listed are: J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345-46; C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28; Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 579 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 330 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2013, no pet.); and In re M.R., 243 S.W.3d 807, 819 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). However, these cases are distinguishable from the instant case as they involved appellants who either knew their child had been removed and continued to participate in illicit activities, or they conducted such activities within the home.

Thus, the trial court could have concluded that even if programs were made available to the Parents, the Parents would not have benefitted from them. See In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 334 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2013, no pet.). These factors weigh in favor of the trial court's best-interest finding.

Endanger means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment, but it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child suffer injury. In re N.K., 399 S.W.3d 322, 330-31 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2013, no pet.).