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

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00124-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF D.S., D.S., D.S., AND D.B., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-736145-23 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel  MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction This is an ultra-accelerated appeal1 in which Appellant B.B. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to D.S. (Daniel), 2 D.S. (Damian), D.S. (Dana), and D.B. (David) (collectively, the children). The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that had endangered their physical or emotional well-being, (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who had engaged in conduct that had endangered their physical or emotional well-being, (3) constructively abandoned the children, and (4) failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O). The trial court also found that termination of the parent–child relationship between Mother and the children was in their best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). In three issues, Mother argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s endangerment and best-interest findings. Because sufficient evidence supports the endangerment findings and the best-interest finding, we affirm. 1 See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (requiring appellate court to dispose of appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice of appeal is filed). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring court to use aliases to refer to minors in 2 an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights). 2  II. Background An investigator with Child Protective Investigations testified that the agency had received a report in late April 2024 regarding neglectful supervision and medical neglect of the children. Concerns were expressed regarding Mother’s leaving her children—all four between the ages of eleven months and four years—unattended and not taking two of her children—one who had autism3 and another who had extreme eczema—to the doctor. The investigator met with Mother on April 25, 2024, at Grandmother’s house and told her that there were concerns about the children’s safety—“living in the household with [Grandmother], who [had] just had surgery[ and who acted as the children’s] caretaker when [Mother] was away at hours of the night.” Mother explained that she had left at night to avoid getting into verbal altercations with Grandmother. Mother further stated that when she had left the house to avoid the altercations, she had gone to the front yard to watch items on the lawn—the children’s clothes and toys. Mother told the investigator that the fathers of the four children were not involved in their lives and that they did not pay child support. The investigator talked to Mother about Family-Based Safety Services (FBSS) that would help her look for a job and that would provide therapy and other resources. The record demonstrated that Daniel was on the autism spectrum and that 3 Mother had chosen not to take him in for a full evaluation. 3 Although Mother had been part of an FBSS case in the past on more than one occasion, she declined FBSS when the investigator offered. Based on information from Mother’s prior FBSS cases, the investigator had concerns about Mother’s drug use and asked her to take a drug test. Mother declined to take a drug test on that day. The investigator testified that Mother had told her that she had spent “three-plus years” in prison in 2010 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This occurred ten years before Mother’s first child was born. On May 11, 2024, the investigator went back to Grandmother’s home and attempted to convince Mother to accept FBSS. When the investigator arrived, she overheard Mother and Grandmother arguing about whether the investigator could enter the home; Grandmother was in favor, but Mother was not. The investigator testified, “[I]f there was no safety concern, there would be no reason that I couldn’t enter the home.” Because the investigator was concerned about the way that Mother and Grandmother communicated with one another in front of the childre