Full Opinion

Opinion issued September 18, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00336-CV ——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF K.A. AND S.A., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 306th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24CP0083 MEMORANDUM OPINION J.A. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children: K.S. and S.A. (hereinafter “Kirby” and “Stella”).1 On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. We affirm. 1 We refer to the minor children by pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. Background and Trial Evidence This case originally involved four of Mother’s children: Kirby, six years old at the time of trial; Stella, three years old at the time of trial, and twins who were one and a half at the time of trial.2 In addition to the children involved in the trial, Mother has two older children who each live with their fathers. A. Removal The Department of Family and Protective Services (hereinafter the “Department”) became involved when Mother gave birth to twins in August 2024, who were born premature and tested positive for cocaine. Mother admitted to the Department caseworker that she had a drug problem and had been using cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, and alcohol during pregnancy. Mother said that she began using drugs after her own mother died in March 2024. The Department filed its petition for conservatorship and termination and was granted emergency temporary managing conservatorship of Kirby, Stella, and the twins. The twins were placed together in foster care once discharged from the hospital, and Kirby and Stella were placed in another foster home with the owner of the daycare they attended five days a week. Foster Mother had known Mother for about three years, since Stella was six months old. 2 This suit originally included Mother’s twin children, D.G. and D.G., but following the bench trial, the court severed the case involving the twins and issued two separate final orders of termination. The severed suit involving the twins is currently on appeal in the Fourteen Court of Appeals, No. 14-26-00344-CV. 2 B. Mother’s History At trial, the caseworker testified that Mother had a lengthy history with the Department concerning substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, and domestic violence incidents between Mother and Kirby’s father. The Department first became involved with Mother in 2013 when her oldest child tested positive for cocaine at birth. Mother admitted that she used cocaine during the pregnancy, completed an inpatient drug treatment program while participating in Family- Based Safety Services, and testified at trial that she completed drug treatment, parenting, and counseling services during the 2013 case. In 2022, the Department became involved again when Kirby’s father was supposed to be watching the children while Mother was at work, but Kirby, age one, was found alone in the apartment, and his older sibling, age 4, was wandering alone outside. In addition, both Mother and Kirby’s father’s older daughter reported that Kirby’s father physically abused them. The older daughter said he pushed her down. Mother reported during her psychological evaluation in March 2023 that her relationship with Kirby’s father was “toxic” and involved mental and physical abuse. She obtained a restraining order against him. Mother also reported in her psychological evaluation that she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder while in juvenile detention and 3 had not had any medication since 2012. She had a history of substance abuse that began when she was 14 years old. She completed counseling, parenting, domestic violence, and psychological services during the 2022 case. The caseworker testified at trial that following the Department’s involvement in 2022, Mother remained in a relationship with Kirby’s father and had a child with him.3 When the caseworker first met Mother in September 2025, Mother told her about many relationship issues with Kirby’s father, including domestic violence. The caseworker testified that Kirby’s father has a significant criminal history that involves assault, burglary, and possession of illegal substances. C. Family Service Plan and Progress The Department created a Family Plan of Service for Mother that became a court order. The Department was worried about Mother’s ability to provide adequate supervision for Kirby, Stella, and the twins, her inability to maintain sobriety and address her mental health, and that if Mother continued to use drugs and engage with drug users, her children would be at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals or death. To address the Department’s concerns, the service plan required Mother to maintain stable housing and employment and to complete a 3 DNA testing showed the twins have different fathers. Kirby’s father is the father of one of the twins. He has six other children from other relationships who are not in his care. After trial, the court terminated his parental rights to Kirby and the twin he is related to, and he is not a party to this appeal. 4 variety of classes, assessments, and recommendations including: parenting classes, a domestic violence education course, a psychological assessment, a psychiatric assessment, a drug and alcohol assessment, random drug testing, substance abuse counseling, and individual counseling. The caseworker testified that after Mother completed a drug and alcohol assessment and inpatient substance abuse program, she later relapsed on cocaine. Following her relapse, Mother completed a second assessment and began substance abuse counseling, but she failed to attend sessions for three months leading to trial. When she last submitted a drug test to the Department in September 2025, the results were positive for cocaine. Despite repeated requests, Mother did not submit drug tests during the five months preceding trial. Kirby’s father also tested positive for cocaine several times during the case, and he failed to submit several drug tests. The caseworker reported that Mother completed a psychological assessment, a psychiatric assessment, and a parenting class, and she engaged in individual counseling sessions until October 2025. Despite the Department providing resources, the caseworker did not believe that Mother had stable housing. Mother told the caseworker that she resides with the children’s maternal grandfather, whose criminal history prevents him from 5 being an approved placement for the children. Mother did not provide any other relative placement options. The Department could not verify employment for Mother despite requesting pay stubs. Six months before trial, Mother told the caseworker she had an “appointment” at a motel, but she never provided verification of employment. Mother, Kirby’s father, and the children had visitation throughout the case coordinated by the Department. Mother and Kirby’s father arrived in the same car for visits and attended together. At times, Kirby’s father called Department employees “derogatory names.” Foster Mother confirmed that Mother was appropriate during visits with Kirby and Stella. When visits started, they were held at Foster Mother’s daycare, but they later switched to an offsite location. Foster Mother testified that during a visit between Mother, Kirby’s father, and the children at the daycare, Kirby’s father “got upset and left.” Foster Mother did not want the visits and any disruptive behavior associated with them to jeopardize her business, so she requested that the Department move them elsewhere. When asked about barriers to reunification with the children, the caseworker responded that the primary risks remain Mother’s continued use of drugs and untreated mental health issues and concerns about the stability of her home and employment. For the Department to consider a monitored return, Mother needed to demonstrate six consecutive months of sobriety, and she had not. Mother’s 6 inability to maintain sobriety “derailed” the Department’s original goal of family reunification. The caseworker also testified that Mother was supposed to return to therapy after she relapsed, but she never did. The caseworker testified that Mother has not mitigated the reasons for which the children came into care, and the Department believes it is in the children’s best interest for her rights to be terminated so that they can be adopted. D. Children’s Progress and Placement According to Foster Mother, Kirby and Stella had been placed with her for about 17 months. The children are considered part of the family, including extended family. When Kirby entered her care, he had “little behavior issues” and was fragile. Since living with her, he has become a happy child who loves school. When he first came to her home, he could not read or write his name, but now he is exceeding expectations at school. Foster Mother reported that Kirby attends therapy twice a month for struggles related to missing his maternal grandmother. She also made sure Stella attended medical appointments for a heart murmur that was resolved on its own. Foster Mother said she hopes to adopt Kirby and Stella if parental rights are terminated, and it would be her goal to maintain the strong bond they have with the twins. The four children see each other every day at her daycare, and Foster Mother developed a close relationship with the twins’ foster parent that she intends to continue. 7 Foster Mother keeps in contact with Mother by text message and video calls with the children, which the children enjoy, and she hopes to maintain a relationship with Mother and facilitate visits with her and the children if Mother maintains sobriety. Mother also attends the church where Foster Mother’s husband is the reverend. Mother told Foster Mother that she hopes that Foster Mother will keep the children and that she did not want Kirby’s father to have them. The court- appointed special advocate testified that she has visited the children in their placement, and they are well adjusted. The caseworker affirmed that the children are well cared for by Foster Mother and that it is the Department’s goal that Foster Mother adopt Kirby and Stella. Dr. K. Johnson testified that she worked with Kirby and Stella as their therapist and case manager. Dr. Johnson began working with Kirby when he was four years old. He struggled with emotional dysregulation and appropriate conflict resolution and had a difficult time with the death of his maternal grandmother and separation from Mother. Dr. Johnson reported that he has “come a very long way” now that he has stability and a structured environment with rules and boundaries. He was academically underachieving, but after working with the school and Foster Mother at the daycare, he is excelling academically and on the honor roll. He remains very protective of his younger siblings. At first, he did not want Stella or the twins to interact with other children during daycare. Dr. Johnson explained that 8 she worked on Kirby’s coping skills so that he understood that it was okay to share his siblings. According to Dr. Johnson, Kirby expresses attachment to Mother but also says that his mother is “sick,” and therefore, he cannot live with her. Kirby told Dr. Johnson that he does not want to live with his father. Kirby considers Foster Mother and her husband his family and expressed a desire to continue living with them. Dr. Johnson began working with Stella when she turned three years old. Stella has attachment disorder, anger management issues, and ADHD. She struggles with excessive separation anxiety. Dr. Johnson confirmed that Stella has also expressed a desire to continue living with Foster Mother. Dr. Johnson reported that she observed a recent visit where Kirby’s father exhibited “underlying abusive,” abnormal verbal and emotional behavior toward Stella that made Stella very uncomfortable. Stella wandered to another table in the restaurant and attempted to climb into another man’s lap. Mother called her back to her table, and Kirby’s father met Stella as she walked, picked her up, squeezed her arms, and kissed her while whispering harsh words to her.4 Dr. Johnson affirmed that Kirby’s father’s behavior of whispering harsh words to Stella while holding her tightly and kissing her is a marker of domestic violence. Dr. Johnson could tell 4 According to Dr. Johnson, Kirby’s father said, “You over there getting in another man’s lap. We don’t play that motherfucking shit.” 9 it made Stella uncomfortable and that Kirby’s father was using manipulation, control, and subtle fear with Stella. Dr. Johnson opined that it would be in both children’s best interests for them to remain in their current placement. E. Mother’s Testimony Mother testified that she relapsed during the case after completing outpatient substance abuse treatment twice. She admitted that she last used cocaine “[m]aybe three weeks ago.” Though she confirmed she had participated in 12-step programs in 2013 and 2022, she could not name the second or third steps of the program. When asked, Mother said she stopped participating in drug testing during the case because “y’all mind already made up” and “it ain’t going to be out of [her] system in 30 days.” She said her triggers for relapses include being away from her children, stress, depression, and guilt. She confirmed that there is a correlation between being off her psychiatric medication and relapsing, and she said sometimes she does not take the medication because she is waiting for prescription refills. Mother testified that she currently lives with her father, the children’s maternal grandfather. She said she was unemployed, with her last job being a motel for about three months before quitting the month before trial. She said she was focused on her mental health and getting through “all of this” before finding a 10 new job. She said she sees a therapist every two weeks and takes psychiatric medications. She denied that Kirby’s father had ever hit, pushed, or put his hands on her. She said that allegations of domestic violence were “a misunderstanding.” She did not recall telling the Department in 2022 that she experienced domestic violence or testifying to the same previously. She testified on cross-examination that she did not recall telling the Department that Kirby’s father had assaulted her so severely she miscarried a baby. Mother denied that she is in a relationship with Kirby’s father but admitted she is intimate with him. She said that Kirby’s father may have tested positive for cocaine because he had sex with her. Mother affirmed that she has a good relationship with Foster Mother and believes her children are well cared for. Mother said she was not asking the court to place the children with her immediately, but she wants all four of the children to be placed with Kirby’s father’s sister, S.C., so they are not separated. S.C. had not met the twins.5 Mother was not opposed to restrictions on her visitation and admitted that the behavior she engaged in during the case is dangerous and that it is unfair for her children’s lives “to be put on hold while their parents decide whether or not they’re going to engage in services.” 5 The Department completed a preliminary home study on S.C., but it was unclear at the time of trial whether her home would be viable for the children. The caseworker testified that the Department had “some pretty serious concerns” about her as a placement. Mother previously told the caseworker that she did not want her children placed with S.C., and Mother also communicated concerns with S.C. to Foster Mother. 11 F. Trial Court’s Ruling At the conclusion of trial, the court found predicate grounds for termination under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found that termination was in the best interest of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering conditions), (E) (endangering conduct), (O) (continued substance abuse after completion of court-ordered treatment). Sufficiency of the Evidence On appeal, Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights to Kirby and Stella was in the children’s best interest.6 A. Standard of Review The U.S. Constitution, Texas Constitution, and Texas Family Code protect parents’ “natural and fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing.” In re K.N., No. 24-0081, — S.W.3d —, —, 2026 WL 1614378 at *6 (Tex. June 5, 2026). To that end, the government must “clear[] a high bar” to justify terminating a parent’s right to parent her child. Id.; see also In re H.S., No. 24-0307, — S.W.3d —, —, 2026 WL 1614496, at *8–9 (Tex. June 5, 2026) (reemphasizing that terminating parental rights “‘is always the last resort’ . . . permissible to protect children from serious harm . . .[and] may be exercised only in the absence of other 6 Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings on predicate acts. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). 12 legitimate options.” (quoting D.V. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 722 S.W.3d 854, 861 (Tex. 2025))). To support termination under this heightened standard, the Department must present clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the parent has committed one of the acts listed in section 161.001(b)(1); and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b). 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.” Id. § 101.007. This standard “is unforgiving” and “the government may not sever the legal ties between parents and children without clearing [this] high bar.” K.N., — S.W.3d — at —, 2026 WL 1614378, at *6–7. When assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a termination proceeding, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and decide “whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002); see City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 817 (Tex. 2005) (discussing elevated standard of review in parental termination cases). We assume that any disputed facts were resolved in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could have done so. J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. When “no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction” that the matter on which the 13 Department bears the burden of proof is true, we “must conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient.” Id. In reviewing the evidence’s factual sufficiency, we consider the entire record, including disputed evidence. Id. The evidence is factually insufficient if, considering 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.; In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018) (citing J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266). We give due deference to the factfinder’s findings, and we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). The factfinder is the sole arbiter when assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. Id. at 109. Mother contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in Kirby and Stella’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(2) (requiring that trial court find that termination is in best interest of child). “‘[B]est interest’ is a term of art encompassing a much broader, facts-and-circumstances based evaluation that is accorded significant discretion.” In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 460 (Tex. 2013) (quoting Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976)). There is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the child with the 14 child’s natural parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is also presumed to be in the child’s best interest. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a). The best- interest inquiry is “child-centered and focuses on the child’s well-being, safety, and development.” In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). To determine whether parental termination is in a child’s best interest, courts may consider the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the present and future physical and emotional needs of the child; (3) the present and future emotional and physical danger to the child; (4) the parental abilities of the persons seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist those persons seeking custody in promoting the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the individuals or agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72. These factors are not exhaustive, and evidence is not required on every factor to support a finding that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Id.; In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Courts may consider circumstantial evidence, subjective factors, and the totality of the 15 evidence as well as direct evidence when conducting a best interest analysis. In re E.N.T., No. 01-25-00346-CV, 2025 WL 30383879, at *38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 5, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). “[T]he State need not prove all of the factors as a condition precedent to parental termination, ‘particularly if the evidence were undisputed that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the child.’” In re C.T.E., 95 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (quoting In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002)).7 A parent’s past conduct is probative of her future conduct when evaluating the child’s best interest. See In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.). A factfinder may also infer that past conduct endangering the well-being of a child may recur in the future if the child is returned to the parent when assessing the best interest of the child. See In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d 462, 471 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.). Evidence supporting 7 We may also consider the statutory factors under Texas Family Code Section 263.307, including (1) the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; (2) whether there is a history of abusive or assaultive conduct by the child’s family or others who have access to the child’s home; (3) the willingness and ability of the child’s family to seek out, accept, and complete counseling services, and to cooperate with and facilitate an appropriate agency’s close supervision; (4) the willingness and ability of the child’s family to effect positive environmental and personal changes within a reasonable period of time; (5) whether the child’s family demonstrates adequate parenting skills, including providing the child with minimally adequate health and nutritional care, a safe physical home environment and an understanding of the child’s needs and capabilities; and (6) whether an adequate social support system consisting of an extended family and friends is available to the child. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). 16 termination under one of the predicate grounds listed in section 161.001(b)(1) may also be considered in support of a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (holding same evidence may be probative of both section 161.001(b)(1) grounds and best interest). B. Analysis Mother’s continuing pattern of illegal drug abuse “implicates most of the Holley factors” and will support a finding that termination is in the children’s best interest. In re E.D., 682 S.W.3d 595, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, pet. denied). A parent’s continuing pattern of drug use implicates an “attendant risk to employment, housing, and prolonged absence from the child[ren].” In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 279–81 (Tex. 2024) (stating continued drug use supports a finding of endangerment). Mother has a lengthy history with cocaine addiction, including giving birth to children in 2013 and 2024 who tested positive for cocaine. See In re A.V., 697 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. 2024) (stating parent’s drug use during pregnancy “supports a finding of direct injury to the child[ren]”). After the twins’ birth and the Department’s involvement, Mother successfully completed an inpatient substance abuse program, but she later relapsed. She testified at trial that she last used cocaine three weeks before trial, and she stopped submitting to drug testing required by the Department for the five months before trial. The last drug test in the record was positive for cocaine in September 2025. Mother’s 17 decision to engage in illegal drug use during the pendency of the termination suit, when she was at risk of losing her children, supports the trial court’s best interest finding. In re. A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 580 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). When as here the evidence shows the parent returned to drug use after rehabilitation, the factfinder may reasonably find that the parent will likely continue using drugs and therefore continues to pose a risk to her children’s wellbeing. See, e.g. Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 254–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (en banc) (holding mother’s use of cocaine during pregnancy endangered child and failure to abstain from drug use despite rehabilitative efforts allowed factfinder to reasonably find she could continue to endanger child in affirming trial court’s best- interest finding). Additionally, the same evidence that proves one or more statutory grounds for termination may constitute sufficient, probative evidence illustrating that termination is in the best interest. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28.8 She admitted at trial that she engaged in dangerous conduct throughout the case, continued using cocaine, was unemployed, and could not provide for the children. She did not 8 While Mother challenges only the best interest finding on appeal, her failure to challenge the statutory findings itself does not mean that the best interest finding is supported. See In re H.S., No. 24-0307, — S.W.3d —, 2026 WL 1614496, at *5 (Tex. June 5, 2026) (reversing best interest finding without reviewing predicate act findings). 18 submit to required drug testing, and she stopped participating in therapy to address her mental health needs. The trial court could have reasonably concluded that Mother failed to demonstrate her willingness or ability to provide the children with a safe, stable, drug-free environment. See In re J.A.R., 696 S.W.3d 245, 257 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024, pet. denied) (“Stability and permanence are paramount in the upbringing of children.”). The record also showed that the children were thriving in their current placement. The Foster Mother hoped to adopt them, and desired to continue facilitating a relationship between them and the twins. Foster Mother also hoped to keep the children connected with Mother, provided Mother maintained sobriety. Dr. Johnson testified that the children’s emotional well-being had improved once they were in a stable home environment. While Mother concedes that the sixth and seventh Holley factors weigh in favor of the trial court’s best interest finding, she asserts that termination is not in the best interest of the children because there is evidence that the children loved her and were bonded to her and because there is no evidence that she used drugs in their presence. See Holley, 554 S.W.2d at 371– 72. The record certainly shows that the children had a bond with Mother and loved her, and that she was bonded with and loved them. But the record also shows that Mother had a pattern and history of drug use, repeatedly failed to submit to drug testing or failed drug tests, did not continue therapy and counseling after relapse, 19 and did not demonstrate that she could provide a stable and safe home for the children. Accordingly, Mother’s acts and omissions indicated that the existing parent-child relationship was not a proper one, which supports the trial court’s best interest finding. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72. Upon considering the evidence as it relates to Mother’s actions and inactions, the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future, the emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the future, Mother’s lack of parental abilities and stability, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children. Accordingly, we overrule Mother’s sole issue on appeal. Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s order. Susanna Dokupil Justice Panel consists of Justices Caughey, Morgan, and Dokupil. 20