Opinion
NO. 01-17-00926-CV
05-29-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF P.S.E. AND J.T.S., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-03612J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a decree terminating a mother's parental rights to two of her children. The mother argues that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the trial court's final decree. We affirm.
Background
The Department of Family and Protective Services received a referral alleging the mother's neglectful supervision of her six-year-old daughter, P.S.E., and of her four-year-old son, J.T.S. According to the referral, it was reported that the mother was living in a hotel room with the children, and there was a concern that she was "dealing, using drugs or prostituting herself." It was further reported that the mother left P.S.E. unsupervised in the room all day while she slept, and that she failed to seek any medical care for J.T.S., who was sick. The mother was alleged to have left the children with different people for a week at a time, and there was "no information to indicate" whether the people were "appropriate." There was no concern for physical abuse, although the referral included allegations that the mother cursed "like a sailor," yelled at the children, and became physically violent with other adults in the children's presence. It was noted that the mother had a history of using drugs, including "[m]eth and [h]eroin." There was concern that the mother was using those drugs again, although there was no "definitive proof." The referral also alleged that "the mother drinks," but the impact, if any, on the children was unknown.
The Department conducted an investigation, and it subsequently filed a petition seeking temporary managing conservatorship of P.S.E. and J.T.S., and further seeking termination of parental rights if reunification with the parents was found to be unsuitable. Following a full adversary hearing, the Department was granted temporary managing conservatorship of both children. At the time of removal, the fathers of both children were incarcerated, and P.S.E.'s father's scheduled release was in September 2028. The children initially were placed with their maternal grandmother.
The Department developed individually-tailored family-service plans for the mother and for the fathers of P.S.E. and J.T.S. The trial court incorporated the plans by reference in a status-hearing order, making the plans orders of the court. Each plan listed several tasks and services to be completed by the parents for reunification with P.S.E. or J.T.S. to occur. The plans also included a summary of the referral received by the Department, which alleged neglectful supervision of both children by their mother. Each plan stated that it was intended to help the parent provide a safe environment for children within a specified time, and that if the parent was unwilling or unable to provide that safe environment, parental and custodial duties and rights could be restricted or terminated, or the child or children might not be returned to the parent.
The Department's petition to terminate parental rights was tried to the bench. The Department called the assigned caseworker as its sole witness. The mother also testified. The Department offered 11 exhibits which were admitted into evidence. These included, among other documents, the children's birth certificates, the order appointing the Department as temporary managing conservator of both children, family-service plans for the mother and the fathers (including a summary of the referral received by the Department as the "reason for child protective services involvement"), results of three drug tests for the mother, and documentation related to the criminal history of both children's fathers. P.S.E.'s father relinquished his parental rights prior to trial. The drug tests indicated that the mother had tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine in March 2015 and in June 2016. In a test conducted in August 2015, she tested negative for any drugs.
The caseworker testified that the Department sought custody of P.S.E. and J.T.S. because the mother was providing "inadequate supervision" to the children. There also was a concern that the mother had been using or selling drugs out of the hotel where she and the two children were staying. There was a concern that the mother might harm herself or her children.
According to the caseworker, upon receiving the referral the Department interviewed the mother as part of its investigation. The mother informed the Department that her "drunken uncle" kicked her out of his home. At the time of the interview, she had been living with her children in a hotel for two weeks. Prior to that, she had stayed at a different hotel. During the interview, the mother admitted to having used "meth and marijuana." She also acknowledged that she had a history with the Department. The caseworker testified that because both of the children's fathers were "currently in jail," the Department had not conducted interviews with either.
In this regard, it must be noted that Child Protective Services requires that incarcerated parents be "interviewed to gather information to fully assess the family." TEX. DEP'T OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVS., CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES HANDBOOK § 6351 (2017); see also TEX. DEP'T OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVS., INCARCERATED PARENTS RESOURCE GUIDE, at 2-3 (2018), https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Resource_ Guides/Incarcerated_Parents_Resource_Guide.pdf (providing guidelines for a caseworker's engagement with an incarcerated parent). Furthermore, a parent's attorney representing an incarcerated parent "may need to advocate for reasonable efforts to be made for the client, and assist the parent and the agency caseworker in accessing services." STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING PARENTS IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (CTR. ON CHILDREN AND THE LAW, A.B.A. 2006), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/center_on_children_and_the_law/parentrepresentation/ABA-Parent-Attorney-Standards.authcheckdam.pdf; see also TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.0131(a)(1)(I) (an attorney ad litem also has a duty to "become familiar with the American Bar Association's standards of practice for attorneys who represent parents in abuse and neglect cases").
The caseworker testified that the Department had received six prior reports concerning the mother. In one previous investigation, the mother admitted to leaving the children with a stepfather and threatening to kill herself. The Department also had been concerned about the mother's drug use during that investigation. As a result of that investigation, P.S.E. and J.T.S. were placed with a maternal aunt. When the mother secured a job, the aunt felt that she was in "a stable position," and the children were returned to their mother. That case was closed approximately one year before the Department received the referral that led to this termination suit. The caseworker agreed that the mother had been able to demonstrate, "at least to her family's satisfaction," that she was capable of providing a safe environment for her children for brief periods of time. However, throughout the Department's interactions with the mother, she had not shown the ability to provide for her children on a long-term basis.
The mother had other children who lived with their father, and the Department had not sought to take custody of them. The mother had supervised visits with those children pursuant to a court order.
The mother was required to submit to random drug testing as part of her family-service plan. She submitted to one drug test at the onset of the case, and she tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Despite requests from the Department, the mother failed to submit to any additional drug tests. The caseworker testified that the mother had not completed any other services ordered by her family-service plan. The mother failed to keep in contact with the Department, or with her children, both of which were required by her family-service plan. She did not complete parenting classes, counseling, or a drug assessment, and she had not provided proof of employment or a lease, all of which also were required by her family-service plan.
As of the time of trial, the mother had not seen P.S.E. or J.T.S. in over a year. She appeared at the initial adversary hearing, and she was offered an opportunity to visit the children. But after she failed to appear at the subsequent status hearing, the court determined that the mother was not participating in any services, and it entered an order prohibiting her from visiting the children. The caseworker testified that if the mother had complied with her family-service plan by participating in services and testing negative for drugs, she would have been able to have visits with the children. She further testified that while the case was pending the mother had not written any letters to the children, nor had she reached out to them on birthdays or holidays. The mother did not provide any support for them during that time. The caseworker testified that the children's fathers also had not been in contact and neither had provided support for his child.
Eight months before trial, the mother was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. The caseworker testified that she ultimately was sentenced to time served.
Until approximately one or two weeks before trial, the Department had no contact with the mother for over a year. The mother contacted the caseworker before trial and informed her that she had been in a rehabilitation program for the previous four months. The mother had not contacted the caseworker before starting the program. The caseworker reached out to the mother's counselor at the rehabilitation facility, and she requested that the counselor send her "any and all records" of the mother's time at the facility. The counselor provided the Department a log of the mother's drug test results and a personal recommendation letter. She did not provide any additional documentation. The caseworker testified that the mother was regularly tested for drugs during her time in the rehabilitation program, but she did not testify about the results of the mother's drug tests while in that program.
The caseworker testified that she did not have time to fully vet the treatment facility or the rehabilitation program. She confirmed that if the mother had provided notice prior to entering the facility, the Department would have been able to vet it. Because the mother had failed to maintain contact with the Department, it did not have any information about the program other than what the mother had told the caseworker.
At the time of trial, the mother was living with her godmother. The caseworker testified that the Department considered that home to be a stable environment. The caseworker did not know whether the mother paid rent, or whether there was a lease agreement. The caseworker agreed that it would be "fair to say" that the mother would have no place to live if some disagreement arose between her and the godmother. The caseworker agreed that the mother was willing to continue to work services and to continue with her drug treatment plan to get the children back.
P.S.E. and J.T.S. had been in a "foster to adopt" home for the five months leading up to trial. The caseworker had visited the foster home, and she had observed the foster parents interact with the children. She testified that she had no concerns about the placement. She stated that the children were doing "really well" in the placement, and they appeared to be bonded with their foster parents.
Neither child had special needs. Both children were receiving therapy, and the foster parents ensured the children attended their therapy appointments on time. Prior to the suit, P.S.E. twice had been held back in the first grade. The caseworker testified that this was due to the mother failing to take the child to school. She stated that in the foster placement the children were doing "really well" in school, and she agreed that they were "educationally on target."
The caseworker testified that P.S.E. was very happy in the foster placement and she wanted to stay there and be adopted by the family. She testified that both children were thriving with the foster placement. The foster parents were meeting the needs of both children, and she believed in the long term, the foster home would be the best place for them.
P.S.E.'s father had an extensive history of criminal activity and drug use. J.T.S.'s father also had a criminal history, and he never had been involved in his son's life. The caseworker testified that the mother had not demonstrated stability or the ability to ensure the safety of her children, had engaged in criminal activity while the case was pending, and had provided no support for the children.
The Department requested that P.S.E.'s father's parental rights be terminated pursuant to his voluntary relinquishment. It further requested that J.T.S.'s father's parental rights be terminated. Finally, the Department requested that the mother's parental rights to both children be terminated because she had physically or emotionally endangered them. The Department requested that it be appointed managing conservator for both children. The caseworker testified that she believed this would be in the children's best interest.
The mother testified. She requested that the court not terminate her parental rights to P.S.E. and J.T.S., and that it give her additional time to complete her family-service plan. She admitted that she had used drugs, but she denied that she had a "long history" with drug use. She testified that she had only had two cases with the Department. She admitted that P.S.E. and J.T.S. had been removed from her care once before the removal that led to this termination proceeding, but she denied that it was because she had left them at a stepfather's house. The mother explained that prior to the previous case, she had moved out of her townhome and "married a preacher." She and the preacher divorced after three months, and she and her children had to leave his home. She asked her previous ex-husband to take the children because she was "upset" and had to "figure out where to go." She also texted her ex-husband that she felt like she wanted to kill herself. She testified that she was upset when she sent the text messages, and the ex-husband "tried to turn them against" her. The children were removed from her care following that incident.
The mother stated that she had not been using drugs prior to the removal of her children in that first case, but she agreed that she "went back to using drugs again" after their removal. She testified that she used "meth" for "maybe a couple of months" after the first removal, but she stated she did not use drugs often. She testified that she then stopped using drugs for approximately one year, but she relapsed after she was kicked out of her house and lost her job. The relapse was approximately two or three months before the Department received the referral in this case.
The mother admitted that she had been arrested for a drug charge while this case was pending. She agreed that she served "a couple days in jail" for that charge. She testified that she voluntarily entered an in-patient sober recovery facility following her release from jail. She remained in the facility and received counseling for four months. The mother testified that the program was actually a one-year program, but she was discharged early—one month before trial—so she could "take care of" the termination case.
When asked why she did not notify the Department before entering the program, she explained that she "didn't really talk to anybody," and she had been in a "dark place." She testified that she left jail and went directly to the facility. She agreed that it might have been harmful for her children to be unaware of her location for a long period of time. She also stated that it was "not okay" that she used drugs, but she did not agree that her drug use endangered her children. Although she went to jail for drug use, she explained that she did not have her children at the time. The mother further testified that she had never used drugs in front of her children, and that she had "never ever" put her children in danger.
The mother insisted that she had written to her children while the case was pending. She testified that her children were her "world" and that she never was intentionally absent from their lives. She admitted that she "did not handle the case very well in the beginning," and her conduct did not portray how important her children were to her. She admitted that she "obviously had a problem," and stated she had done everything on her part to take care of the problem. She further acknowledged that she had made "some mistakes." She stated that her "ultimate goal and plan" had been to do whatever she could to reunite with her children, or to do whatever she could to fix everything that she "messed up." She stated she was willing to do anything, including going to "AA and NA," and doing more drug counseling "for the rest of [her] life, if that's what it takes."
The mother was living with her godmother at the time of trial. She asked the court to consider her godparents as a placement for the children, and to complete a home study of their home. The godparents attended the trial, but they did not testify. The mother stated she was willing to move out and get her own place in order for the home study to be completed.
The mother testified that she was on a good path and would never go back. She stated that she had raised her two older children for most of their lives, and that she had raised P.S.E. and J.T.S. for their "whole lives." She stated she had "pretty much" done it on her own with "very abusive exes." She conceded that she "didn't do it right" before, but said she could now, and she wanted another chance. She said she had a lot of help which she had never had before.
The Department argued that the mother had not shown an ability to provide a safe and stable environment for her children. It additionally argued that the mother had been able to demonstrate stability or sobriety only for brief periods of time, and it pointed out her history of relapsing. The Department's attorney stated he had "no doubt" that the mother completed the program, and that she was sober at the time of trial. However, the trial judge questioned his certainty, observing a lack of evidence that the mother had completed the program. The trial judge asked for the name of the program, the name of the mother's counselor, the date of the mother's admittance to and discharge from the facility, and a list of services the mother had received in the program. None of this information was provided at trial. The attorney for the Department clarified that he was giving the mother "the benefit of the doubt," conceding a lack of proof that the mother completed any services at the facility. He argued: "Even if she is clean today . . . if she follows her current pattern of behavior, she's very likely to relapse and place these children back in danger."
In its final order, the trial court found that the mother had committed the predicate acts of endangerment, constructive abandonment, and failure to comply with a court order. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O). It also found that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interest of both P.S.E. and J.T.S. Based upon those findings, the trial court terminated the mother's parental rights to both children. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of P.S.E.'s father and of J.T.S.'s father. The Department was named sole managing conservator of both children.
The mother appealed.
Analysis
The mother concedes on appeal that the evidence was sufficient to support each of the trial court's predicate findings. She also concedes that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the court's finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. She argues only that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the best-interest finding. She contends that because the children's godmother could be studied for a potential kinship placement, the termination of her parental rights was not in the best interest of the children.
To terminate parental rights, the State must establish by clear-and-convincing evidence that there is at least one predicate statutory ground for termination and that the termination is in the child's best interest. TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). Clear-and-convincing evidence is "the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." TEX. FAM. CODE § 101.007.
In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the entire record, including disputed evidence. J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266 (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002)). The evidence is factually insufficient if, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved in favor of the finding is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction. Id.
There is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child will be served by maintaining the parent-child relationship. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006). There also is a presumption that prompt and permanent placement of a child in a safe environment is in the child's best interest. In re K.P., 498 S.W.3d 157, 173-74 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). To determine whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best interest of the child, we consider the factors set out in Holley v. Adams: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976). The list of Holley factors is not exhaustive, nor is evidence of all nine factors required to support a judgment of termination. Id. Evidence that establishes the predicate acts under section 161.001(b)(1) may be relevant to determining the best interest of the child. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27-28.
Desires and needs of the children.—P.S.E. was eight years old and J.T.S. was six years old at the time of trial. Neither child testified, but the caseworker stated that P.S.E. had expressed a desire to stay with the foster placement and to be adopted by the family. The caseworker additionally testified that the placement was a foster-to-adopt home, and the foster parents were meeting the needs of both children. Although the children had been with the placement for only five months, the caseworker testified that both children were thriving in the placement and they had bonded with the family. She believed it would be in their best interest to remain with the family. The mother testified that she raised P.S.E. and J.T.S. for their "whole lives," which could support an inference that the children had a bond with their mother.
It was undisputed, however, that the mother did not visit the children after their removal, and she had not seen or spoken to either child in over a year. The trial court had entered an order prohibiting visitation, but the caseworker testified that this was due to the mother's failure to participate in services and to test negative for drugs. The trial court could have considered the mother's failure to visit with the children while the case was pending as a factor in determining the best interest of the child. See, e.g., In re B.M.R., 84 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also In re S.P., 509 S.W.3d 552, 558 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.). It was undisputed that the mother failed to provide any support for her children while the case was pending. The caseworker testified that the mother had not written the children any letters, though the mother testified that she had.
Neither child had any special needs. Both children were receiving therapy, and the caseworker testified that the foster parents were able to get them to their appointments on time. According to the caseworker, P.S.E. twice had been held back a grade due to the mother's failure to take her to school. This was not disputed at trial. The children were doing "really well" in school and were "educationally on target" after being removed from their mother's care. The family-service plan entered into evidence referenced allegations that the mother slept all day leaving P.S.E. unattended, and she failed to seek medical treatment for J.T.S. when he was sick.
Endangerment of the children.—In determining the best interest of a child, a factfinder may consider evidence of a parent's past behavior that endangered the well-being of the child and infer that the conduct may recur in the future if the child is returned to the parent. See, e.g., Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700, 723-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).
It was undisputed at trial that the mother used methamphetamines and amphetamines. The caseworker testified that P.S.E. and J.T.S. initially were placed in the Department's care based in part on concerns that the mother was using or selling drugs out of the hotel room where she lived with the children. The report summarized in the family-service plan noted that the mother had a history of using "[m]eth and [h]eroin." During an interview with the Department, the mother admitted to using "meth and marijuana." Although the mother denied that she had a "long history" of drug abuse, the drug test results established that she tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines in March 2015, and again in June 2016, at the beginning of this case. Both positive samples were collected following investigations of the mother's parenting by the Department.
The mother admitted that she used drugs for a couple of months following the previous removal of P.S.E. and J.T.S. in 2015. She testified that she stopped using drugs, and she remained sober for approximately one year. A negative drug test in August 2015 provided some support for her testimony. She relapsed in 2016 after losing her job and being asked to leave her uncle's house.
The pattern of results from the three tests in evidence provided support for the Department's argument that despite brief periods of sobriety, the mother had a history of relapsing. A parent's drug use can support a finding that termination is in the best interest of a child. See, e.g., C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28; In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
It was undisputed that the mother was arrested for drug possession eight months before trial. There was no evidence that she had a criminal history prior to the arrest. The mother stated that she served a couple of days in jail for the drug possession charge, and she voluntarily went directly to an in-patient treatment facility following her release. She testified that she received treatment for four months. She did not inform the caseworker about the program until approximately one to two weeks before trial. It was the first time she had contacted the Department for over a year. No explanation was offered to account for the four months between the mother's release from jail and when she resumed contact with the caseworker. Other than the mother's own testimony, the only evidence of her treatment was the caseworker's testimony that she spoke with a counselor who provided her with a log of the mother's drug test results and a personal recommendation letter. Neither document was offered at trial, nor was any additional information about the facility or about the mother's treatment presented at trial.
The mother testified that she remained sober during the in-patient treatment, but no evidence was presented to establish that she in fact tested negative for drugs at any point while the case was pending. She submitted to one drug test through the Department, and the results were positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. She failed to submit to any additional drug testing even though it was required by her family-service plan. The trial court reasonably could have inferred that she failed to report for testing to avoid a positive test because she was using drugs or alcohol. In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d 258, 269 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). The mother's history of drug use was some evidence of endangerment that supported a firm belief or conviction that termination of parental rights would be in the children's best interest. Id.; see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372.
It was undisputed that the mother failed to complete any part of her service plan. The trial court was permitted to consider her failure to complete her service plan as a factor supporting its best-interest finding. See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013).
Programs available to promote the best interest of the children.—The evidence established that programs and services had been offered to the mother through her family-service plan to assist her in providing a safe environment for P.S.E. and J.T.S. The services included drug treatment and counseling services, both of which the Department would have provided to the mother free of charge. Parenting classes were also offered to the mother through her family-service plan.
It was undisputed that the mother failed to take advantage of any services offered to her. Instead, she entered an in-patient treatment facility without giving notice to the Department. She left the one-year program after only four months, and she contacted the Department just one to two weeks before trial, giving it little time to vet the facility, or to obtain or confirm details of her treatment. At trial, she requested additional time to complete services, but the case already had been extended for several months. The mother admitted that she "didn't do it right" before, but she testified that she wanted another chance. She stated that she had a lot of unspecified "help" which she did not have before.
The mother testified that she was discharged early from the one-year treatment program so she could tend to the termination suit. She indicated that she was willing to attend "AA and NA," and to continue drug treatment for the rest of her life if necessary, but she did not testify about whether she would return to the facility to finish the remaining eight months of the program she had already started.
Parental abilities , plans for the child , and stability of home.—In analyzing the factor of parental ability, the factfinder may consider the parent's past neglect or inability to meet the physical and emotional needs of the child. The caseworker testified that the mother had failed to demonstrate her ability to provide a safe and stable environment for her children. In the previous investigation that resulted in P.S.E. and J.T.S. being removed, the mother had no place to live after divorcing her husband. When the children were removed from their mother's care in this suit, she had been living in different hotels after being kicked out of her uncle's house. By trial, the mother was living with her godmother, which the caseworker considered a stable environment. However, the caseworker testified that she did not know whether the mother paid rent, and the mother had not provided any lease agreement. The caseworker agreed that it would therefore "be fair to say" that the mother would have no place to live if the mother and her godmother had some type of falling out.
In contrast, the caseworker testified that she had been to the foster home, and that she had no concerns about the placement. The Department argued that the children were in a safe and stable placement, and the placement was willing to adopt the children.
The referral received by the Department and summarized in the family-service plan offered into evidence alleged that the mother cursed and became physically violent toward other adults in front of the children, and yelled at the children. It additionally alleged that she failed to supervise P.S.E., and she failed to tend to J.T.S. when the child was sick. It was undisputed that the mother did not attend the parenting classes ordered by her family-service plan.
Acts or omissions of the parents and excuses.—The mother did not provide an explanation for her failure to comply with the tasks and services set out in her family-service plan. There was no evidence that she even began any of her services. There was some evidence that the mother did attend a drug treatment program, but as the trial court noted, the details of her treatment were not established. Further, the mother did not complete the program. She explained that she left the program early to tend to this case, but there was no evidence that she would or could reenter the program. Because the mother failed to notify the Department before entering the program, it was unable to determine the legitimacy of the program, or whether it would have satisfied treatment under the mother's family-service plan. The mother testified that she did not tell the Department about the program earlier because she was in a "dark place."
The mother failed to maintain contact with her children while the case was pending. Although an order was in place preventing her from visiting them, it was entered only after the court determined that the mother was not complying with her family-service plan. The caseworker testified that the mother would have been able to visit with her children if she had complied with the plan. Additionally, there was no evidence that the mother attempted to have the order lifted. There was conflicting testimony about whether the mother wrote to her children while the case was pending.
Relevance of evidence about the godmother.—The mother's argument that termination of her parental rights was not in the best interest of her children is almost exclusively based upon her contention that the godmother's home could be studied for potential placement. The godmother was not a witness at trial, although the record indicates that she was present in court. No evidence was presented concerning the godmother's relationship with either child. In other words, there was no evidence of any bonding between the children and the mother's godmother. Prior to the mother's request at trial, no party to the court proceedings ever asked that the court place the child with the godmother. The testimony indicated that no home study had been completed for the godmother's home.
The evidence additionally established that the mother was living with her godmother, and the caseworker testified that she considered it to be a stable environment for the mother. Considering the mother's failure to complete services and remain sober, the factfinder could have concluded that it would not have been appropriate for the children to be placed in that home along with the mother. Although the mother testified that she was willing to move out of her godmother's home in order for a home study to be completed, there was no evidence that the mother had the means to do so. The caseworker had not been provided a lease agreement and she did not know whether the mother paid rent at her godmother's home. The mother had also failed to provide the caseworker paystubs showing that she had a stable source of employment, or any income at all. The mother did not testify at trial that she had a job or that she otherwise had a source of income that would allow her to provide for herself.
Conclusion
We conclude, in light of the entire record, that any disputed evidence a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved in favor of the best-interest finding was not so significant as to preclude the formation of a firm belief or conviction in that finding. Thus, we hold the evidence factually sufficient to support termination of the mother's parental rights to both P.S.E. and J.T.S.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Michael Massengale
Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.