The dissent analogizes the facts before us to In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

As a result, he does not have standing to challenge the portions of the decree appointing the Department managing conservator because any error could not injuriously affect his rights. See In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

A parent's incarceration is also a factor properly considered, when coupled with other relevant evidence, on the issue of endangerment. In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

A parent's incarceration is also a factor properly considered, when coupled with other relevant evidence, on the issue of endangerment. In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

See FAM. § 263.307(B)(8) (courts may consider whether there is history of substance abuse by child's family in determining whether child's parents are willing and able to provide child with safe environment); see also In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering Father's awareness of Mother's history of substance abuse as evidence in support of trial court's best-interest finding)). Cannon testified Mother needed oversight when parenting A.S. and that she was not capable of parenting D.S., even with oversight.

In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). At trial, witness testimony supported the following facts:

Both legal- and factual-sufficiency reviews require us to review the evidence to determine whether the factfinder reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the grounds for termination were established. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 265-66 (Tex. 2002); In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *4 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The difference between the two reviews lies primarily in the way we consider evidence contrary to a finding.

Although imprisonment, standing alone, does not constitute engaging in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child, it is a fact properly considered alongside other probative evidence of endangerment. See In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). If the evidence, including imprisonment, proves a course of conduct that has the effect of endangering a child's physical or emotional well-being, a finding under subsection (E) is supportable.

Both legal- and factual-sufficiency reviews require us to review the evidence to determine whether the factfinder reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the grounds for termination were established. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 265-66 (Tex. 2002); In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The difference between the two reviews lies primarily in the manner in which we consider evidence contrary to a finding.

Both legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency reviews require us to review the evidence to determine whether the factfinder reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the grounds for termination were established. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 265-66; In re L.E.H., No. 05-18-00903-CV, 2018 WL 6839565, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The difference between the two reviews lies primarily in the manner in which we consider evidence contrary to a finding.