In the Interest of B.B., S.B. and J.B., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00044-CV In the Interest of B.B., S.B., and J.B., Children On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas Judge Cheryll Mabray, presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-55657 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION The father of B.B., J.B., and S.B. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights. 1 Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that Father had violated Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b). In his sole issue, Father contends that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. We will affirm. 1 The parental rights of the mother of B.B., J.B., and S.B. were also terminated, but she has not appealed.  Authority The standards of review for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in cases involving the termination of parental rights are well established and will not be repeated here. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264–68 (Tex. 2002) (legal sufficiency); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency). The trial court, as factfinder, is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009). In a proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship brought under section 161.001 of the Family Code, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) must establish by clear and convincing evidence two elements: (1) that the respondent parent committed one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (b)(1), termed a predicate violation, and (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b); In re J.F.-G., 612 S.W.3d 373, 381 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020) (mem. op.), aff’d, 627 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2021). Proof of one element does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of proving the other. J.F.-G., 612 S.W.3d at 381. In this appeal, Father challenges the legal and factual sufficiency to support the trial court’s finding regarding only the second element, i.e., that termination was in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we need only address that element. In the Interest of B.B., J.B., and S.B, Children Page 2  In determining the best interest of a child, several factors have been consistently considered, which were set out in the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion of Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). The Holley factors include: (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; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals; (7) the stability of the home; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Id. This list is not exhaustive but simply identifies factors that have been or could be pertinent in the best-interest determination. Id. at 372. There is no requirement that all these factors be proven as a condition precedent to parental termination. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. The absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the children’s best interest. Id. In fact, while no one factor is controlling, the analysis of a single factor may be adequate in a particular situation to support a finding that termination is in the children’s best interest. In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d 258, 268 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). In the Interest of B.B., J.B., and S.B, Children Page 3  The Holley factors focus on the best interest of the children, not the best interest of the parent. Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ). And evidence relating to the predicate grounds under subsection 161.001(b)(1) may be relevant to determining the best interest of the children. See C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28. Discussion Father argues that the Department failed to present evidence of the needs