In the Interest of S.F., a Child v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00310-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Moore County, Texas
Trial Court No. CL40-23, Honorable Jerod Pingelton, Presiding

February 6, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellants F.B (Mother) and J.F. (Father) appeal from the Moore County Court at

Law’s order terminating their parental rights to their four-year-old daughter, S.F.1 Appellee

is the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Through a single issue,

Mother challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that

termination was in S.F.’s best interest. Father brings two issues, challenging the best-

interest finding and a statutory predicate ground for termination. We affirm.

1 To protect S.F.’s privacy, we will refer to F.B. as “Mother,” J.F. as “Father,” and the child by initials.

See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
I. Background

Drug abuse lies at the heart of this case. Mother started using methamphetamine

in her thirties and was 42 at the time of trial. Father, who has a documented history of

methamphetamine use and continued marijuana consumption, had lost rights to another

child in 2016–17 due to methamphetamine use.2 Their substance abuse ultimately led to

S.F.’s removal from their care.

The Department’s involvement with this family began in March 2020, when Mother

tested positive for unprescribed hydrocodone at S.F.’s birth. By January 2022, the

Department opened another investigation after learning Mother was using

methamphetamine and hydrocodone. During this period, Mother made allegations of

domestic violence and sexual abuse against Father,3 which Mother later said was untrue.

The situation deteriorated further in early 2023. After her sister’s death in January,

Mother attempted suicide and entered inpatient mental health treatment. She then

entered but quickly left a drug treatment program after just two days. 4 The incident

leading to S.F.’s removal occurred in March 2023, when Mother lost consciousness from

2 Even though Father testified he had been “ten years clean” of methamphetamine as of the trial

date, he tested positive for marijuana on several occasions, including the first day of trial.
3 The other evidence of alleged domestic violence was mixed.Department investigator Courtney
Jones testified Mother moved to Dumas claiming to escape Father’s abuse, while permanency specialist
Tiffany Brown expressed no concerns about domestic violence despite Mother’s allegations. Family
services worker Amanda Henry reported Father had prior domestic violence issues, and added that,
according to Mother, Father became “evil” when using methamphetamine.
4 Mother entered treatment because, in her words, “I have a drug addiction.”

2
fentanyl use while driving with S.F. in the vehicle.5 The Department placed S.F. in

temporary care while Mother returned to inpatient treatment for withdrawal symptoms.

The record reflects that following S.F.’s removal, neither parent demonstrated

sustained progress. Mother’s service plan obligated her to maintain a drug-free lifestyle.

However, Mother’s fair follicle tests showed positive results for various substances: in

May 2023 (methamphetamine and hydrocodone); December 2023 (amphetamines,

methamphetamine, codeine, and hydrocodone); March 2024 (hydrocodone). Mother

claimed six months of sobriety at trial though testifying she used methamphetamine and

fentanyl in February 2024, and hydrocodone on Easter Sunday 2024. Department

permanency specialist Brown testified Mother’s diagnosis was “severe” and required

long-term treatment. According to Brown, the purpose of drug treatment programs for

parents with substance abuse problems is to “learn skills on how to cope with the things

that make them do the drugs, give them alternatives, help them process the things that

lead up to them picking up the drug.” Brown testified she could not gauge Mother’s

sobriety.

Father’s compliance with court orders was similarly problematic. His service plan

required maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, yet he tested positive for marijuana multiple

times throughout 2023 and 2024, including on the first day of the final hearing.6 Although

5 The Department’s service plan emphasized concerns about Father’s failure to protect S.F., noting

he knowingly left her in Mother’s care despite awareness of her substance abuse—a decision that
culminated in Mother’s overdose while driving with S.F. in the vehicle.

6 Father registered positive drug-tests on April 4, 2023 (marijuana and marijuana metabolite;

metabolite level 8.9), May 3, 2023 (marijuana level 764), August 21, 2023 (marijuana level 1154), December
4, 2023 (urine and hair; urine marijuana level 249; hair metabolite level 24.7), and August 19, 2024
(marijuana level 372).

3
Father claimed he only used legal CBD through a vape device, his most recent test

showed positive results for marijuana rather than just metabolites. Father also missed

several required drug screens, blaming his work schedule, and was uncooperative with

efforts to arrange testing when he traveled. Brown suggested Father’s efforts to arrange

testing while traveling was uncooperative, noting “we can send a drug screen to any place

in the U.S. All I need is a zip code. He has not provided me with a zip code any time that

I’ve asked.”

After completing couples counseling, Mother and Father separated, with Mother

remaining in their leased Amarillo home and Father moving in with his mother. Though

Father’s mother’s home had several bedrooms, the Department rejected it as a

placement option because another adult child living there had a pending sexual assault

charge. Mother proposed coparenting but had not investigated daycare options or even

seen Father’s current residence. Father confirmed he did not have in mind a place to

establish as his own home but was “looking into it[.]” He suggested his mother and

grandparents could help with childcare despite his mother’s home being deemed

unsuitable. The specifics of a coparenting plan were not presented in evidence.

Mother testified about a full-time job with Visiting Angels, where she earns $13 per

hour. Father is a heavy machinery operator, making $4,000 to $5,000 per month. Father

acknowledged his work sometime takes him out of town. Brown expressed concern about

the absence of a daycare plan for S.F.

As for other services, Mother completed parenting classes, a psychological

evaluation, a women’s domestic violence group assessment, rational behavior therapy,

4
individual counseling, and couple’s counseling. Mother acknowledged that after the first

setting of final hearing she was arrested and indicted for debit card abuse; she denied

any wrongdoing and awaited trial.

Meanwhile, S.F. (age 4 at the time of final hearing) has thrived in foster care.

Though initially behind developmentally when removed, she has made significant

progress, attends pre-K, and receives speech therapy. Brown described her as smart

and stubborn with good relationships with other children in her foster home. Her foster

parents wish to adopt if she becomes eligible.

II. Analysis

We review the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence supporting termination

under well-established standards. See In re A.M., No. 07-21-00052-CV, 2021 Tex. App.

LEXIS 5447 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 8, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The trial court,

as factfinder, exclusively judges witness credibility and weighs evidence. In re H.E.B.,

No. 07-17-00351-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 885, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 31,

2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). It may believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony.

In re K.R., No. 07-23-00373-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1467, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

Feb. 28, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

A child’s best-interest determination requires a broad evaluation of facts and

circumstances and warrants significant discretion in the trial court. In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d

445, 460 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding). While courts may discuss evidence within the

5
context of the factors articulated in Holley v. Adams,7 no unique set of elements must be

proven. In re L.C.C., 667 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023, pet. denied).

Indeed, evidence need not touch every Holley factor for a court to form a firm belief that

termination serves a child’s best interest, particularly when undisputed evidence shows

the parental relationship endangered the child’s safety. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex.

2005). Additionally, unchallenged evidence supporting the predicate grounds for

termination can support a best-interest determination. In re M.D., No. 07-21-00149-CV,

2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7217, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 30, 2021, pet. denied) (per

curiam, mem. op.); see also In re T.C., No. 07-18-00080-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6769,

at *13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 23, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that a parent

who opts to forgo a challenge to predicate ground findings tacitly concedes that sufficient

evidence supports those findings).

III. Mother’s Appeal

Mother challenges only the trial court’s best-interest finding. Here, the trial court’s

unchallenged findings that Mother endangered S.F.—exemplified by her pattern of drug

use and intoxicated driving with S.F.—strongly support its best-interest determination.

See In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 278 (Tex. 2024) (explaining that drug use coupled with

evidence of danger to child demonstrates risk to parenting ability). Mother’s drug use

impacts multiple Holley factors, particularly given S.F.’s age and complete dependence

7 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex.1976) (listing: (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.).

6
on her as caregiver should they be reunited. See In re O.J.C., No. 04-23-00126-CV, 2023

Tex. App. LEXIS 5944, at *7–8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 9, 2023, pet. denied) (mem.

op.). Of particular concern, Mother continued using illegal drugs after S.F.’s removal and

while her service plan was in place—when she knew her parental rights hung in the

balance. This “indicates an inability or unwillingness to prioritize the burdens and

responsibilities of parenthood ahead of the desire for intoxication, an impaired condition

that is not compatible with the care of a very young child like this one.” In re A.J.D.-J.,

667 S.W.3d 813, 825 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, no pet.).

As Shakespeare observed, “what’s past is prologue.” WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, THE

TEMPEST, act 2, sc. 1. Although Mother’s six months of sobriety could suggest future

abstinence, the trial court could reasonably infer the opposite: that her post-removal drug

use and refusal to enter long-term treatment for a “severe” problem shows future relapse

is likely. The decision of which inference to draw lay firmly within the trial court’s

discretion. See In re A.M., Nos. 07-18-00047-CV, 07-18-00048-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS

3688, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 23, 2018, pet. denied) (per curiam, mem. op.).

Additionally, Mother presented no viable plan for S.F.’s care beyond suggesting

undefined coparenting with Father. The evidence showed she had not investigated

daycare options or even seen Father’s current residence. Her proposed reliance on

Father as her sole support system raises particular concern given their ended relationship

and evidence about Father’s home environment. Meanwhile, S.F. has thrived in foster

care, making significant developmental progress, attending pre-K, receiving needed

speech therapy, and forming positive relationships with other children in her foster home.

7
This evidence allows a reasonable inference that the prospect of adoption would provide

S.F. the permanence she needs.

IV. Father’s Appeal

Predicate Grounds for Terminating Parental Rights

Father brings two issues: challenging the predicate ground (P) finding and the

best-interest determination. A trial court may terminate parental rights under predicate

ground (P) if clear and convincing evidence shows the parent used a controlled substance

in a manner that endangered the child’s health or safety and either: (i) failed to complete

court-ordered substance abuse treatment, or (ii) continued abusing controlled substances

after completing treatment. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(P).

Significantly, however, Father does not challenge the trial court’s finding under

predicate ground (O)—that he failed to comply with court-ordered services.8

“Unchallenged predicate findings are binding on the reviewing court unless the contrary

is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding.” In re

K.G., No. 07-23-00422-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1465, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb.

28, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). Sufficient evidence supports the ground (O) finding,

including undisputed testimony that S.F. remained in the Department’s care for over nine

months, as well as evidence that Father repeatedly violated his service plan by testing

positive for marijuana throughout the case, failing drug screens, and missing required

8 A trial court may terminate parental rights under subsection (O) when clear and convincing

evidence shows the parent failed to comply with court-ordered services while the child was in the
Department’s conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect. TEX. FAM.
CODE. ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

8
tests despite the Department’s efforts to accommodate his work schedule. Because

Father does not challenge the trial court’s finding under ground (O), and a single predicate

ground coupled with best interest suffices to affirm termination, we need not address his

challenge to predicate ground (P). In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tex. 2019) (per

curiam); see also In re K.W., 335 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.);

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

Father’s challenge to the evidence surrounding predicate ground P is overruled.

Best Interest

Father also challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court’s best-

interest finding. Despite requirements in his service plan, the evidence supports a

reasonable finding that Father continued testing positive for marijuana throughout the

case. Although Father claimed having only used CBD, his drug test on the first day of

trial showed marijuana rather than just metabolites. The trial court was not required to

accept Father’s explanation.9

Beyond evidence of ongoing marijuana use, other evidence raised serious

concerns about Father’s ability to provide S.F. a safe and stable environment. Despite

claiming ten years of sobriety from methamphetamine, Father previously lost custody of

another child due to methamphetamine use in 2016–17. Henry recounted that Mother

characterized Father as “evil” when using methamphetamine. Father also lacked stable

housing at the time of trial and presented no viable childcare plan despite work travel.

9 Marijuana is a controlled substance under Chapter 481 of the Health and Safety Code. TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.002(5), § 481.032; see also Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Murrell, No. 02-11-
00155-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6370, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 2, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

9
Perhaps most troubling, Father knowingly left S.F. in Mother’s care while aware of

Mother’s drug use—a decision that culminated in Mother’s overdose while driving with

the child. See In re A.H., No. 02-06-00064-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8432, at *8 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth Sept. 28, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that stability and

permanence are paramount and that past endangering conduct suggests similar future

conduct).

As is true with the evidence regarding Mother, these circumstances implicate

multiple Holley factors, including S.F.’s present and future emotional and physical needs,

potential dangers to S.F., Father’s parental abilities, and the stability of the proposed

placement. Plus, Father lacks participation in any ongoing support program. The

evidence amply supports the trial court’s best-interest finding.

V. Conclusion

Having found sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings both legally and

factually, we affirm the order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to S.F. See

In re A.J.R., No. 03-19-00661-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 2090, at *23 (Tex. App.—Austin

Mar. 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Lawrence M. Doss
Justice

10