In the Interest of G.M.M., V.D., Minor Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Opinion issued January 29, 2026.

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00609-CV
NO. 01-25-00940-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF G.M.D. & V.D., CHILDREN
And
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.J.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 312th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-52906, 2016-30971

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T.R.M. (“Mother”) challenges final decrees rendered in two companion cases

terminating her parental rights to her minor children Z.J.M. (“Zane”), G.M.D.

(“Gabriel”), and V.R.D. (“Violet”) based on the court’s findings that Mother
committed the predicate acts under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (N), (O), and (P), and that termination of her rights was in the best interest of

Zane, Gabriel, and Violet.1 TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), and

(P).2

As we construe Mother’s issues on appeal, Mother argues there is legally and

factually insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that (1) Mother

committed the predicate act under Section 161.001(b)(1)(N), and (2) termination of

her rights was in the best interest of Zane, Gabriel, and Violet. She also argues that

the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Texas Department of Family

and Protective Services as the children’s sole managing conservator.

We affirm the trial court’s decrees of termination.

1
To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to them and their foster parents
by pseudonyms. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
The Texas Legislature amended Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) and repealed
Subsection (O), effective September 1, 2025. See Act of May 16, 2025, 89th Leg.,
R.S., ch. 211, § 2, 4, 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 573, 574–75; In re D.M., No. 11-
25-00102-CV, 2025 WL 2980658, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 23, 2025,
no pet.) (mem. op.). The repeal applies only to suits affecting the parent-child
relationship pending on or after the effective date. See In re D.M., 2025 WL
2980658, at *1 n.2. Because the notice of appeal in this matter was filed prior to the
effective date, former Subsection (O) remains in effect for the purpose of this
appeal. See id.
Because the Texas Legislature repealed former Subsection (O), former Subsection
(P) is the current Subsection (O). Any references to Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) and
Section 161.001(b)(1)(P) in this memorandum opinion are to the previous version
of the statute that was in effect on July 28, 2025—the date the trial court signed its
order terminating Mother’s parental rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet.

2
Background

Mother has five children: A.M. (“Alan”), born in 2007, A.M. (“Amy”), born

in 2009, Zane, born in 2012, Gabriel, born in 2015, and Violet, born in 2017. This

appeal does not involve Alan or Amy.3

The Department of Family and Protective Services (“Department”)4 received

multiple referrals between July 2007 and December 2023 for neglectful supervision,

neglect, and physical abuse of the children by Mother. After the latest incident in

December 2023, when Mother was involuntarily committed to a mental health

treatment center, the Department removed Zane, Gabriel, and Violet from Mother’s

care and filed petitions to terminate Mother’s rights to the children.5 The trial court

conducted a bench trial over four days in May and June 2025. When trial

commenced, Zane was thirteen years old, Gabriel was ten years old, and Violet was

eight years old.

3
Alan and Amy were not subject to the underlying cases. Both Alan and Amy live
with their father’s family, and Mother is not in contact with either child.
4
For purposes of this appeal and ease of reference, the term “Department” also
includes Harris County Child Protective Services.
5
The underlying legal proceedings are two companion cases–one involving Zane and
a second involving Gabriel and Violet. For purposes of this appeal, it is not
necessary for us to discuss the procedural history of these proceedings.

3
Trial

Testimony and exhibits admitted at trial reflect that Mother had a history of

ongoing substance abuse and untreated mental illness, and that she neglected and

endangered Zane, Gabriel, and Violet throughout their lives.

Status reports prepared by the Department, which were admitted into

evidence, reflect that the Department became involved with Mother when the

Department received a report for neglectful supervision and physical abuse by

Mother of her oldest child Alan in July 2007. According to the report, Mother “may

[have been] experiencing postpartum depression” and was “expressing suicidal and

homicidal ideations.”

In April 2013, the Department received another report of neglectful

supervision alleging that Mother was using “marijuana daily which impair[ed] her

ability to meet the supervisory needs of 1 yo [Zane].” Four months later, in August

2013, the Department received another report of neglectful supervision, physical

abuse, and physical neglect by Mother alleging that two-year-old Zane was living in

“an unsanitary home condition” and receiving “inadequate physical care” from

Mother. Mother, who was using methamphetamines, had struck Zane with “an open

hand leaving welts on [the] 2 yo’s arms and legs.”

Two years later in December 2015, the Department received a report for

neglectful supervision of Zane and Gabriel by Mother that resulted in the children’s

4
removal from her care. The children’s caseworker, Donnisha Tate, testified that the

case involved “mental health concerns, extensive drug usage, relapse, and in and out

of mental health hospital.”

In May 2017, the Department received a separate report for Mother’s

neglectful supervision of Violet, who was only a few weeks old. The Department

ruled out the allegations after determining that Mother’s home had “all the basic

needs” to care for a newborn and Mother and Violet’s father D.M.D. (“Doug”)

provided negative drug tests. According to the caseworker, the children were

returned to Mother in August 2017 after she participated in a drug treatment

program. According to Mother’s medical records, she reported in June 2016 that she

had been receiving drug treatment following an arrest for possession of heroin. She

stated that she had used heroin “on and off” for the last two years, but she had begun

“doing it daily and was either injecting it or snorting it.”

In August 2018, the Department received another report for neglectful

supervision of the children by Mother when she was taken to the hospital after she

overdosed on prescription medication “while her children were in the home with

her.” Mother “admitted to hospital staff that she was attempting to kill herself

because she was tired of life,” and according to her medical records, Mother

expressed no remorse or regret for her actions. She also reported having auditory

5
hallucinations, as well as a history of anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and self-

harm.

In February 2021, the Department received another report of neglectful

supervision of the children by Mother in which there “were concerns due to the

mother having delusions about people searching for her, and she was hearing

voices.” According to the status report, Mother’s behavior concerned her young

children, who were unable to sleep at night.

The Department received additional reports between August 16 and

December 15, 2023. The reports alleged neglectful supervision of the three children

by Mother. Among other allegations, a neighbor reported to the Department that

Gabriel, who was then eight years old, had been left at home several times without

adult supervision. Gabriel “would be starving” and he often wandered to a

neighbor’s house to find food and to sleep. According to the neighbor, Gabriel was

often “barefoot and filthy,” and was “in the street at all times of the night.” The

neighbor reported that there was a foul odor coming from Mother’s home and she

suspected that drugs were being manufactured in the home. Gabriel told the neighbor

that Mother had choked him. When the investigator called Mother, Mother refused

to come home because she had an appointment at T-Mobile.

The Department received reports after Gabriel was seen twice running

unsupervised across a busy street. Gabriel told the police that he cut his hand on a

6
fence at school and he ran away from Mother’s car because Mother had threatened

to take him to a mental hospital. When Gabriel’s maternal grandfather came to pick

him up, he told the police that Mother told him two days earlier that she was using

methamphetamines again. Although the nurse told Mother when she picked up

Gabriel from school that he needed stitches, Gabriel’s wound cut was “open, and

oozing” when he returned to school. When school officials told Mother again to take

him to the hospital, Mother told them she had planned to do so, but when Gabriel

ran from the car she “decided to just leave it up to his grandfather to get him care for

his hand.” When asked if she had seen the cut, Mother said “she ha[d]n’t seen

[Gabriel] and does not want to see him.” Mother had expressed the same sentiment

to the school principal, who told the Department that Mother “will clearly say she

wants nothing to do with” Gabriel. Gabriel missed two days of school, and when he

returned, the nurse learned that his grandfather had merely put superglue on his hand

to treat the wound. According to the nurse, Gabriel’s cut was too deep to be treated

with superglue, and he needed stitches.

Gabriel told the Department that he was not staying with Mother because she

is “mean to him” and yells at him and hits him when he gets in trouble. Gabriel stated

that Mother usually hits him with her hand, but once she hit him with her phone. He

reported that he felt safe at his grandfather’s house and did not like it at Mother’s

7
house because she “doesn’t like him and he doesn’t want to get hit and he doesn’t

want to go to the mental health center” and he is scared of her.

Zane told the Department that he too was living with his grandfather because

Mother had “been locking him outside of the house.” According to Zane, there is

“poop everywhere” inside Mother’s home and “it is really dirty.” He told the

Department that Mother “seems like a whole different person when she is on drugs

. . . sometimes she will be nice; sometimes she isn’t when she is on drugs, and she

hasn’t been nice very lately.”

The grandfather told the Department that Mother told him she was back on

methadone, which indicated to him that she was using drugs again. He did not know

what drugs Mother was using but Mother said “she used to use heroin.” He also

stated that the inside of Mother’s home was “deplorable,” there was dog feces and

urine “everywhere,” and he could barely stand the smell. He wanted Violet to stay

with him in his home, but Mother refused.

When the Department spoke to Zane again in October 2023, he reported that

Mother was always asleep, would not answer the door when the children came home

from school, and she did not answer calls from school. The school reported that

Violet had sixteen consecutive absences and when a school liaison and police officer

visited the home, Violet came to the door with tears in her eyes and was “happy to

see the resource officer and the school social worker.”

8
In the most recent incident, on December 15, 2023, Mother called the police

to report an ongoing home invasion, but when the police arrived at 3 a.m. they found

that Mother was hallucinating while armed with a taser and a handgun. Officer Lorna

Salinas testified that Mother was “really scared and really paranoid that someone

was inside” the house. According to Salinas, Mother was rambling incoherently and

reportedly had locked herself in the bathroom for two hours. The inside of the home

was covered in dog feces, food had been left out, the kitchen was filthy, the house

was dirty, and there was trash everywhere. There was no electricity in parts of the

home, and the police were unsure whether the residence had running water.

Salinas testified that the two youngest children were in one bedroom on an

iPad and the older boy was staying in a “back house,” with “somebody else.”

According to Salinas, Zane, did not appear to be surprised to see the police and the

impression Salinas got was that “he was just, like, disappointed, like here we are

again.” According to Salinas, “it seemed like it was normal for him.” The police

were concerned because they did not know how long it had been since the children

had attended school.

Based on her interactions with Mother and the condition of the home, Salinas

concluded that Mother “was either going through some sort of mental crisis or was

under the influence of drugs” and she believed that Mother was “not safe [at home]

9
by herself, especially with her kids.” The officers took Mother into custody for an

emergency detention order and left the children with neighbors.

The Department investigator who visited Mother’s home after she was taken

into custody reported that there was “feces as well as urine spots all over” the home,

the kitchen was full of “dirty dishes, chemicals, [and] a computer monitor” and the

bathtub and toilet in the hallway bathroom were unusable. All three bedrooms were

filled with “clothing, appliances, frames,” there was dog feces and urine in every

room, including on the floor, the curtain, the bed, a pillow, and some comforters

were “engrossed in feces.” The investigator also saw moldy food and chemicals in

Mother’s bedroom.

Mother was taken to the Neuropsych Center at Ben Taub Hospital initially,

but she was later transferred to Houston Behavioral Health Hospital. Medical

personnel told the Department that Mother was having a “psychotic episode,” and

she was in the facility “on an involuntary hold due to hallucinations.” Mother, who

was reportedly detoxing, tested positive for opiates and morphine and she reported

to hospital staff that her drug of choice was fentanyl. Although Mother was not

expected to be released until December 27, 2023, the Department received a message

that Mother was home on December 22, 2023, and the children were back in her

care.

10
According to Mother’s medical records, Mother reported to medical personnel

at Houston Behavioral Health hospital that she had experienced feelings of

hopelessness and helplessness and had suicidal ideations. She stated that her “main

stressor is her heavy fentanyl use,” which she had been using daily for over a year.

Mother reported that the last time she used fentanyl was on December 16, 2023, the

day before the police came to her home. According to her medical records, Mother

has a history of anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, and “opiod abuse on fentanyl”

and she told a nurse that she was “suffering from Fentanyl withdrawals” and needed

something for her nausea and vomiting. After she was taken for treatment to

Memorial Hermann Hospital, Mother fled from the hospital against medical advice.

The record reflects that Mother was charged with the misdemeanor offense of

theft in July 2007 and March 2008, and the felony offense of theft-third offender in

January 2014. In February 2014, Mother was charged with the felony offense of

possession of methamphetamines. She was charged with possession of heroin during

a prior Department investigation in 2016 while her children were in the

Department’s care. In August 2024, Mother was arrested for the felony offense of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a firearm), and she was arrested again in

December 2024 and charged with the felony offense of fraudulent use of identifying

information.

11
A. Donnisha Tate

Caseworker Donnisha Tate, who was assigned to work with the children in

February 2024, testified that Mother has a lengthy history with the Department.

After she was assigned to this case, Tate created a Family Service Plan

(“FSP”) for Mother and reviewed it with Mother. The plan states that the Department

was concerned there was ongoing danger to the children due to Mother’s drug use,

untreated mental health issues, and Mother’s living conditions. It noted that Mother

“severely mismanages available resources,” which resulted in the children’s basic

needs going unmet, and that the conditions in the home were “not suitable for

vulnerable children.” Among other requirements, Mother’s FSP required her to

submit to substance abuse and psychological assessments and follow all

recommendations, submit to random drug testing, attend parenting classes, and

attend all court proceedings and scheduled visits with the children. She was also

required to provide the Department with proof that she had safe and stable housing,

employment, and income.

Tate testified that Mother never appeared for a random drug test or provided

proof she had stable housing or employment. Mother also failed to visit with the

children on a consistent basis and had not seen the children for a year before trial. It

was Tate’s opinion that Mother had abandoned them. Tate testified that Mother was

arrested in November 2024 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and when

12
she tried to visit with Mother in jail to provide her with updates about the children,

Mother was very hostile and threatened Tate and her family.

Although Mother eventually completed a substance abuse evaluation and a

psychological evaluation, Mother was not truthful with the evaluators, and the

information Mother provided during those assessments was “wildly inconsistent.”

Tate testified that Mother’s lack of candor with the evaluators was concerning

because if Mother was not honest, then it would be difficult to get her the proper

treatment. Although she initially reported that she had not used illegal drugs since

she completed drug treatment in 2016, Mother reported during her second substance

abuse evaluation that “she used fentanyl daily, withdrawing from methadone last

August, 2024.” Mother’s second substance abuse evaluation recommended that

Mother participate in substance abuse counseling, but Mother never completed the

recommended treatment or the services recommended by her psychological

evaluation. Tate testified that the only FSP requirement Mother satisfied was

completing substance abuse and psychological evaluations and attending parenting

classes.

With respect to the children’s placement, Tate testified that the children were

living together in a “fictive kin placement” that was licensed to be a foster home.

The foster family planned to adopt the children. According to Tate, the foster parents

provided the children with a safe place to live, medical care, found them a therapist,

13
involved the children in age-appropriate activities, and provided for the children’s

educational and medical needs. Tate believed that the foster parents were well-

invested in making sure the children had a safe, stable, and happy place to live.

Zane and Gabriel told Tate that they wanted their foster parents to adopt them,

and Gabriel was very excited about the possibility. Violet, who was very young

when the removal occurred, told Tate that she liked living with her foster family, but

she wanted to be with Mother, too. Tate testified that the Department believed that

it was in the children’s best interest for Mother’s rights to be terminated so that they

could be adopted by their foster family.

B. Zakiya Bircher

Zakiya Bircher, the children’s therapist, testified that she began seeing Zane,

Gabriel, and Violet in July 2024, and she had been providing them with therapy

twice a month for just under a year by the time of trial. According to Bircher, the

children suffered from significant psychological damage caused by the prolonged,

chronic, toxic trauma they had experienced while in Mother’s care. Among other

traumatic experiences, the children had lived in unsanitary and unstable living

conditions with Mother, who suffered from untreated mental illness, used drugs

while caring for the children, and was a victim of domestic violence. The children’s

educational needs had been neglected, and they had little or no relationship with their

fathers, who were incarcerated.

14
Among other trauma responses, Zane exhibited “a pattern of intense, chaotic

interpersonal relationships,” had a fear of abandonment, had difficulty accepting

responsibility for his actions, and he projected blame onto others, especially Gabriel.

Gabriel had low self-esteem, poor social skills, and he exhibited frequent

disruptive, aggressive, and attention-seeking behaviors. Like Zane, Gabriel also had

difficulty accepting responsibility for his actions and projected blame onto others.

Violet, who was five years old when she was removed from Mother’s care

and has a better relationship with Mother than her older brothers, was extremely

emotionally reactive under minor stress, had difficulty trusting others, and like Zane,

was very anxious about perceived abandonments in relationships. She also suffered

from major depressive order resulting from her separation from Mother.

Bircher testified that although Mother mistreated all three of the children, she

treated Gabriel worse than Zane and Violet. According to Bircher, Mother blamed

Gabriel for his aggressive behavior, and her attitude towards Gabriel strained his

relationship with his siblings, especially Zane who resented Gabriel and blamed him

for the children’s removal. According to Bircher, Mother had sent a message to Zane

before trial in which she told Zane to give Violet her love, but she did not mention

Gabriel.

Bircher testified that Gabriel’s relationship with Mother was “nonexistent,

very unhealthy.” Zane also has a “very strained, unhealthy” relationship with

15
Mother. He feels torn between feeling protective of Mother and angry at some of her

choices and “the fact that his mom put him in this situation.”

Bircher testified that Zane, Gabriel, and Violet had made notable progress in

therapy, and their overall well-being had improved since they were removed from

Mother’s care because their foster parents provided them with something Mother

had not—a stable, safe, nurturing, and loving environment. According to Bircher,

the consistency the foster parents provided Zane, Gabriel, and Violet was important

because the children required that consistency to work on the impact of the trauma

they suffered, and without that consistency, there was a greater chance the children

would not heal from their traumatic experiences, and they could be exposed to

additional traumas. Bircher testified that unlike Mother, the children’s foster parents

provided them with a safe space, where they could be open and transparent in their

communications, experience a repeated pattern of positive experiences and healthy

traits, and receive the therapy and medical care they required to thrive. Zane, who

had a healthy attachment to his foster parents, saw them as parental figures and felt

like he was “in a family unit.” Bircher testified that it was in the children’s best

interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated and for them to be adopted by

their foster family.

16
C. Jessica Davis

Jessica Davis, a relative of Mother who had known Mother since she was a

child, testified that Mother had a pattern of using drugs, receiving drug treatment

and getting sober before her children were born, but Mother would also relapse and

being using drugs again. Davis testified that when Zane was two-years old, Mother

told her that she started using drugs again because Zane had been molested by his

babysitter. According to Davis, “it was just kind of common knowledge her drug of

choice was heroin at that point.” Davis testified that the only time Mother was sober

was when she was involved with the Department or a criminal proceeding. Davis

could not recall a time when Mother had consistently done what was in her children’s

best interests, even when Mother was sober.

According to Davis, Mother and the children were physically abused by

Gabriel and Violet’s father, Doug, who used drugs and had a violent temper. She

knew of approximately ten violent incidents that occurred between Mother and

Doug, and she saw injuries on Mother that Mother admitted were inflicted by Doug,

including “marks and bruising and swelling.” Davis testified that Zane and Gabriel

had red marks on their torsos and arms after Doug beat them in July 2017, and

Gabriel told her that his only memory of his father was “of him punching [him] in

the stomach a bunch of times until [he] cried and he wouldn’t stop and it hurt.” The

17
record reflects that Mother obtained a lifetime protective order against Doug in 2020

based on past instances of family violence.

Davis testified that Mother treated Gabriel worse than she treated Zane and

Gabriel. According to Davis, Gabriel had to “scroung[e] for food” because Mother

did not feed Gabriel properly, and Mother forced Gabriel to sleep “on the floor with

no bedding.” Davis believed that Mother’s different treatment of Gabriel

“absolutely” adversely affected his relationship with Zane and Violet. Gabriel told

Davis that Mother physically abused him, and he described abuse that ranged from

“scratch[es] to strangling to the point of losing consciousness.” According to Davis,

Gabriel “described in detail a very traumatic situation that was recurring where

[Mother] would pick him up at the front-end of the hall by the neck and carry him

down the hall, which is about 20 feet . . . and he would wake up by himself later on

the ground.” Gabriel lived with Davis during the summer of 2023 because Mother

had kicked the eight-year-old out of the house, and he was living with Mother’s

stepfather in another house on the property when the children were taken into the

Department’s care in December 2023.

When asked why she believed it was in the children’s best interests for

Mother’s parental rights to be terminated, Davis stated:

Because these children deserve a chance at life. They deserve love.
They deserve healing from their trauma so the cycle of abuse can end,
and the [foster parents] have exhibited their dedication to the children
and to that process. And I believe it’s in their best interests to have
18
stability. I believe that the best hope of them being productive, healthy,
happy adults is for them to have termination with the parents and to be
with the [foster parents].

D. Foster Parents

Zane, Gabriel, and Violet were placed with the same foster family over a year

before trial began. The children’s foster mother, who had known Mother for over

twenty years and had a very distant relationship with her, testified that Zane and

Gabriel had lived with her for a few months in 2017 when they were taken into the

Department’s care after the Department received a referral alleging Mother had

neglected the children. Violet was born while that case was pending. According to

the foster mother, Mother had been charged with drug possession and theft. She

testified that she knew Mother had struggled with substance abuse and the foster

mother had always made herself available as a refuge for the children.

The foster mother testified that she and her husband ensured that the children

attempted therapy and received regular medical care, including annual checkups.

Although the children had a “very bad” relationship with each other when they

moved in with their foster family, the children’s relationship had improved. The

children were happy and doing well in school, and they were very active in church.

She testified that Mother never sent gifts or support for the children, and the children

had not seen Mother for a year before trial. According to the foster mother, the

children had stopped asking about Mother and they no longer expected to hear from

19
her. She testified that Zane experienced “immediate emotional and mental damage”

when Mother contacted him before trial began and the foster mother did not tell

Gabriel and Violet about it because she did not want to upset them as well.

Approximately a month after Gabriel was placed in her home, Mother

contacted the foster mother and accused Gabriel of “awful things,” and told the foster

Mother not to keep Gabriel because “he was a danger.” The foster mother denied

Mother’s accusations against Gabriel, “a regular 10-year-old boy who’s been

through some really terrible stuff.” According to the foster mother, Gabriel was “so

loving and so caring, and he’s got a lot of positivity compared to where he came

from.”

The foster mother and foster father testified that they were bonded with the

children and wanted to adopt them. They had spoken to the children about their plans

and Gabriel was “very excited” about the possibility that he could be adopted. Zane

was open about adoption and Violet, who had been more hesitant, was also open to

the possibility of adoption. The foster mother testified that terminating Mother’s

parental rights was in the children’s best interests because it would provide the

children with the stability and sense of safety that they needed, and the children

would “feel safe, like they are home.”

20
Decrees of Termination

On July 28, 2025, the trial court signed final decrees of termination finding

that Mother had committed the predicate grounds for termination under Section

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), and (P), and that termination of Mother’s parental

rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet was in the children’s best interest. The court

terminated Mother’s parental rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet and appointed the

Department as the children’s sole managing conservator.6 This appeal followed.

Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(N)

Mother identifies her first issue as challenging the legal and factual

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that she committed

the predicate act for termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(N) of the Family Code.

But Mother’s brief does not address the elements of Subsection (N).7 Instead, Mother

argues there is evidence that she has a significant bond with Zane, Gabriel, and

6
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of Gabriel’s and Violet’s father
D.M.D. and the parental rights of Zane’s father J.A.N. and an unknown father.
D.M.D., J.A.N., and the unknown father are not appealing the termination of their
parental rights.
7
Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(N), a parent’s rights may be terminated if clear and
convincing evidence establishes the parent “constructively abandoned the child who
has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the
Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than six months,” the
Department made “reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent,” the parent
had not “regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child,” and “the
parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment.”
TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(N).

21
Violet, that Violet wants Mother to remain in her life, and that the May 2025 email

Mother sent to Zane is evidence of Mother’s efforts to “contact, connect, and

communicate” with Zane and Violet.

These arguments are more pertinent to a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting a trial court’s finding that termination of a parent’s rights was

in the child’s best interest. We thus address the trial court’s best interest findings

further below. With respect to Mother’s challenge to Subsection 161.001(b)(1)(N),

we overrule her issue. “To affirm a termination judgment on appeal, a court need

uphold only one termination ground—in addition to upholding a challenged best

interest finding—even if the trial court based the termination on more than one

ground.” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tex. 2019); see also In re A.V., 113

S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003) (stating one predicate finding under

Section 161.001(b)(1) “is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there

is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest”). The trial court

terminated Mother’s parental rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet based on the court’s

findings that Mother committed the predicate acts under Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D)

(endangering conditions), (E) (endangering conduct), (N) (constructive

abandonment), (O) (failure to complete court-ordered service plan), and (P)

(endangerment caused by parent’s drug use). By failing to challenge the trial court’s

termination findings under Section 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (O), and (P), Mother

22
waived any complaint about the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these

findings and thus we need not consider whether sufficient evidence supports the trial

court’s finding under Subsection 161.001(b)(1)(N). See In re S.C.M., No. 01-22-

00964-CV, 2023 WL 3873342, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2023,

pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding parent waived challenge to predicate findings not

challenged on appeal).

Ordinarily, it would be necessary for us to review the trial court’s findings

under Subsections (D) and (E) because termination of parental rights on either basis

can serve as the basis for termination of the parent’s rights to another child in the

future. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 235 (stating due process requires review of

trial court’s findings under Subsection (E) “even when another ground is sufficient

for termination, because of the potential consequences for parental rights to a

different child”); TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(M) (authorizing trial court to

terminate parent’s parental rights to child if court finds by clear and convincing

evidence parent “had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to

another child based on a finding that the parent’s conduct was in violation of

Paragraph (D) or (E)”). This requirement, however, only applies when the parent

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s endangerment

findings under (D) and (E). See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 at 237 (“Allowing

section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) findings to go unreviewed on appeal when the

23
parent has presented the issue to the court thus violates the parent’s due process and

due course of law rights.”) (emphasis added); see also In re A.B.-G., No. 01-24-

00509-CV, 2024 WL 4982500, at *11–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 5,

2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding In re N.G.’s requirement that appellate courts

review predicate findings under Subsections (D) and (E) if challenged, even where

another ground is sufficient for termination, does not apply when findings under (D)

and (E) are not challenged); In re M.M.H., No. 10-19-00456-CV, 2020 WL 830804,

at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 19, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating In re N.G.

does not require appellate court to review sufficiency of evidence supporting

endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) when parent’s sole issue on

appeal was challenge to trial court’s best interest finding). Because Mother is not

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that

she committed the predicate acts under (D) and (E), we need not review those

findings.

We overrule Mother’s first issue.

Best Interest

Mother argues that the evidence reflects she has a significant bond with Zane,

Gabriel, and Violet, Violet wants Mother to remain in her life, and the May 2025

email Mother sent to Zane is evidence of Mother’s efforts to “contact, connect, and

communicate” with Zane and Violet. Although Mother did not challenge the trial

24
court’s best interest findings in her stated issues, these arguments are pertinent to a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a trial court’s best interest

finding. See generally Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976)

(identifying list of non-exclusive best interest factors, including child’s desires). We

thus liberally construe Mother’s argument as a challenge to the legal and factual

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that termination of

her parental rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet is in the children’s best interest.

A. Applicable Law

The purpose of the State’s intervention in the parent-child relationship is to

protect the best interests of the children, not to punish parents for their conduct. See

In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 361. There is a strong presumption that the best interest of

a child is served by keeping the child with a parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116

(Tex. 2006); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2012, no pet.). But there is also a presumption that the “prompt and permanent

placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child’s best

interest.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(a); see also In re B.J.C., 495 S.W.3d 29, 39

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (noting child’s need for

permanence through establishment of stable, permanent home is paramount

consideration in best interest determination).

25
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) 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 at 533.

Courts may consider circumstantial evidence, subjective factors, and the totality of

the evidence as well as direct evidence when conducting a best interest analysis. See

In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied).

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

26
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 at 116.

A parent’s past conduct is probative of his 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 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 17, 28 (Tex.

2002) (holding same evidence may be probative of both Section 161.001(b)(1)

grounds and best interest). Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) authorize the

termination of a parent’s rights to a child when the parent has endangered the child’s

27
physical or emotional well-being.8 The term “endanger” encompasses a broad “array

of conduct that ‘expose[s a child] to loss or injury’ or ‘jeopardize[s]’ the child.” In

re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 277 (Tex. 2024) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v.

Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987)); see also In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351, 360

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (stating parent’s conduct which

subjects child to life of uncertainty and instability endangers child’s physical and

emotional well-being). “[E]ndangering conduct is not limited to actions directed

towards the child.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009). The danger to

the child may be inferred from parental misconduct, even if the conduct is not

directed at the child and the child suffered no actual injury. See Boyd, 727 S.W.2d

at 533 (stating although endanger means “more than a threat of metaphysical injury

or the possible ill effects,” “it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the

child or that the child actually suffers injury”); see also In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625,

636–37 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied) (stating parent’s conduct before

child is born and treatment of other children can support finding of endangerment).

8
Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), a parent’s rights may be terminated if clear and
convincing evidence establishes the parent “knowingly placed or knowingly
allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the
physical or emotional well-being of the child[.]” TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D). Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), a parent’s rights may be
terminated if clear and convincing evidence establishes the parent “engaged in
conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which
endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Id.§ 161.001(b)(1)(E).

28
B. Analysis

Multiple factors support the trial court’s findings that termination of Mother’s

parental rights is in the best interest of Zane, Gabriel, and Violet, including Mother’s

lengthy history of endangering her children, who experienced profound neglect and

physical abuse while in Mother’s care, her ongoing use of fentynal and other drugs

in a manner or under circumstances that harmed or threatened to harm the children,

and her untreated mental illness.

As to the present and future emotional and physical dangers to Zane, Gabriel,

and Violet, the evidence shows that Mother endangered the children’s well-being by

allowing them to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d

at 372 (identifying present and future emotional and physical dangers to child as best

interest factor). Multiple witnesses reported that Mother’s home was unsanitary.

There was dog feces and urine on the floors, bedroom curtains, and linens. The

bathtub and toilet in the hallway bathroom were unusable and only part of the home

had electricity. Rotting food was left out and the kitchen sink was full of “dirty

dishes, chemicals, [and] a computer monitor.” See In re L.W., No. 01-18-01025-CV,

2019 WL 1523124, at *16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2019, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (holding evidence parent allowed child to live in unsanitary

conditions supports endangerment and best interest findings). She also left Gabriel

home alone on multiple occasions. See In re J.D., No. 02-24-00404-CV, 2025 WL

29
52128, at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 9, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating

evidence mother left child without adult supervision supports best interest finding).

The evidence of Mother’s twelve years of ongoing illegal drug use, including

throughout the pendency of the case, supports the trial court’s best interest finding.

The record reflects that Mother had a pattern of using different illegal drugs,

receiving drug treatment and getting sober, but then relapsing, and she endangered

her children by using illegal drugs in a manner or under circumstances that harmed

or threatened to harm the children. Mother was using “marijuana daily” in April

2013, and her drug use “impair[ed] her ability to meet the supervisory needs” of

Zane, who was then oneyear old, and she was using methamphetamine in August

2013, while caring for Zane, who was living in unsanitary conditions and receiving

“inadequate physical care” from Mother. Although Mother apparently achieved

sobriety afterwards, she told Davis when Zane was two years old that she relapsed

after learning that he had been molested by a babysitter. According to Davis, it was

“common knowledge her drug of choice was heroin at that point.”

While Mother had a case pending with the Department in June 2016, Mother

admitted that she had used heroin “on and off” for the last two years, and she had

started “doing it daily and was either injecting it or snorting it.”

In December 2023, Mother tested positive for opiates and morphine, and she

reported to hospital staff that her drug of choice was fentanyl, which she had been

30
using daily for over a year. Mother reported that the last time she had used fentanyl

was on December 16, 2023, the day before the police came to her home. Eleven-

year-old Zane told the Department that he knew what drugs look like and he can tell

when Mother is using drugs because she “seems like a whole different person.”

Mother never appeared for random drug testing during the seventeen months

the case was pending and days before trial began in May 2025, Mother reported to

her substance abuse evaluator that “she used fentanyl daily, withdrawing from

methadone last August, 2024.”

This evidence of Mother’s ongoing illegal drug use shows that Mother

endangered her children’s physical and emotional well-being and thus supports the

trial court’s best interest finding. See In re E.D., 682 S.W.3d 595, 607 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, pet. denied) (“A continuing pattern of illegal drug use. . .

implicates most of the Holley factors and will support a finding that termination of

parental rights is in a child’s best interest.”); In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 281

(recognizing parent’s “positive drug tests in 2020 and across-the-board refusal to

undergo service-plan tests from November 2020 to September 2021 sufficiently

develop[ed] [his] continued pattern of drug use”). A fact finder may infer that such

endangering conduct may recur in the future if the children were returned to

Mother’s care. See In re D.M., 452 S.W.3d at 471 (stating factfinder may infer that

past endangering conduct will recur if child returned to parent).

31
There is also evidence that Mother physically abused and neglected Gabriel

and Zane and she exposed all three children to domestic violence while they were in

her care. Gabriel, who was eight years old at the time, reported that Mother routinely

hit him when he was in trouble and she had strangled him “to the point of losing

consciousness” on several occasions. The Department’s records show that Mother

had also struck Zane with an open hand when he was two years old, leaving welts

on his arms and legs.

In addition to the violence perpetrated against the boys by Mother, there is

also evidence that Gabriel and Violet’s father, Doug, would beat Mother and the

boys. According to Davis, Doug had assaulted Mother on at least ten occasions, and

she had seen Mother’s injuries, including “marks and bruising and swelling.” Davis

testified that Zane, who was then five years old, and Gabriel, who was then two years

old, had red marks on their torsos and arms after Doug beat them in July 2017.

Gabriel told Davis that his only memory of his father was “of him punching [him]

in the stomach a bunch of times until [he] cried and he wouldn’t stop and it hurt.”

This evidence also supports the trial court’s best interest finding. See In re L.W.,

2019 WL 1523124, at *11, 13, 19 (stating evidence mother physically abused

children and children witnessed violence in home supports endangerment and best

interest findings).

32
Mother failed to obtain adequate medical care for Gabriel after he injured his

hand, and although she knew that Zane was molested by a babysitter when he was

two years old, Mother did not report the abuse or seek medical care for Zane. See In

re A.B., 125 S.W.3d 769, 778 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (stating

parent’s “failure to protect the emotional well-being of the children following the

allegations of sexual abuse” supports trial court’s best interest finding); see generally

In re S.G.S, 130 S.W.3d 223, 238 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (reasoning

that factfinder could infer from actual neglect of one child that physical and

emotional well-being of other children was also jeopardized).

There is also evidence that Mother treated Gabriel worse than she treated Zane

and Violet. According to Davis, Gabriel had to “scroung[e] for food” because

Mother did not feed him properly, she forced Gabriel to sleep “on the floor with no

bedding” while Mother shared her bed with Zane and Violet, and she left Gabriel

home alone while she took his siblings with her. Mother also repeatedly told school

officials that she did not want anything to do with Gabriel, made disturbing

accusations against him which his foster mother refuted, threatened to have the

eight-year-old committed to a mental hospital, and she told her stepfather that she

was planning to move to Corpus Christi, but she was taking only Zane and Violet

with her. Multiple witnesses also testified that Mother’s treatment of Gabriel

33
adversely affected his relationship with Zane and Violet and caused his siblings to

resent him and blame him for their removal from Mother’s care.

There is also evidence of Mother’s ongoing mental health issues, including

multiple psychotic episodes, a suicide attempt that occurred while Mother was alone

with the children, and Mother’s failure to address those issues through treatment

offered by the Department during this and prior cases. See In re B.A.M., No. 01-22-

00048-CV, 2022 WL 2513477, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2022,

no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that while mental illness alone is insufficient to show

endangerment, a parent’s failure to access available treatment endangered child).

The evidence also reflects that Mother was charged with the misdemeanor

offense of theft in July 2007 and March 2008, the felony offense of theft-third

offender in January 2014, and the felony offense of possession of

methamphetamines in February 2014. She was charged with possession of heroin

during a prior Department investigation in 2016 while her children were in the

Department’s care and she was arrested twice during the pendency of the current

case and charged with the felony offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon and fraudulent use of identifying information. This evidence also supports

the trial court’s best interest finding because Mother’s criminal activity caused her

to be away from her children and subjected them to a life of uncertainty and

instability. See In re V.V., 349 S.W.3d 548, 554, 558 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

34
Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (stating criminal activity that exposes parent to

incarceration is conduct that endangers child’s physical and emotional well-being

and supports best interest finding).

Evidence that Mother attended only eight of twenty-seven scheduled visits

with the children and she had not seen the children for over a year before trial also

supports the trial court’s best interest finding. See In re J.G., No. 02-21-00257-CV,

2022 WL 187983, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(“[A] trial court may consider in its analysis a parent’s failure to visit, which can

endanger the child’s emotional well-being.”).

With respect to the present and future physical and emotional needs of the

children, the record reflects that Mother failed to meet many of her children’s basic

needs, including failing to provide them with a safe and sanitary home. See Holley,

544 S.W.2d at 372 (identifying present and future physical and emotional needs of

child as best interest factor); TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b)(12)(A) (stating parent’s

ability to provide child with “minimally adequate health and nutritional care” is best

interest factor). Mother also failed to maintain stable housing and employment

throughout the pendency of the case. See In re A.J.–A., No. 14–16–00070–CV, 2016

WL 1660858, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (“Lack of stability, including a stable home, supports a finding that the parent

is unable to provide for a child’s emotional and physical needs.”); Holley, 544

35
S.W.2d at 372 (recognizing stability of home and ability to provide for child’s

current and future physical and emotional needs as best interest factors). There is

also evidence that Gabriel was often seen barefoot and dirty, and that he routinely

would go to a neighbor’s house to look for food and a place to sleep. See In re K-

A.B.M., 551 S.W.3d 275, 288 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (“A child’s basic

needs include food, shelter, clothing, routine medical care, and a safe, stimulating,

and nurturing home environment.”).

Mother’s failure to obtain adequate medical care for Gabriel after he injured

his hand and her neglect of the children’s educational needs, as reflected by evidence

that Violet had sixteen consecutive absences from school, are indicative of Mother’s

poor parenting abilities and her inability to meet the children’s needs and thus

supports the best interest finding. See In re L.W., 2019 WL 1523124, at *22 (holding

parent’s failure to seek prompt medical attention for children when needed was

indicative of parent’s poor parenting abilities and supported best interest finding); In

re A.O.M., No. 14-15-01012-CV, 2016 WL 1660630, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (stating evidence of parents’

failure to ensure children were enrolled in school indicative of inability to meet

child’s needs and inadequate parental abilities).

Mother’s use of heroin during the pendency of a prior case in 2016 and her

use of fentanyl during the current case also indicate that she lacks the parental

36
abilities necessary to care for the children and supports the trial court’s best interest

finding. See In re D.R., 631 S.W.3d 826, 835 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, no pet.)

(“Mother’s use of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case, even after

being released from inpatient treatment, showed that she lacked the parental abilities

necessary to care for the children, that she failed to learn from the programs available

to assist her, and that the existing parent-child relationship was not a proper one.”).

Although Mother was required to do so by her FSP, it is undisputed that

Mother never appeared for a random drug test or provided the Department with proof

she had safe, stable housing, employment, or income. Mother also failed to maintain

contact with the Department, and she had not visited the children for over a year

before trial. This evidence of Mother’s failure to complete her FSP also supports the

trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s rights to the children is in the

children’s best interest. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28 (stating evidence mother

failed to complete her family service plan supports best interest finding).

The children’s therapist testified that the children had significant needs for

safety, structure and stability in order to process the trauma they suffered while in

Mother’s care. By all accounts, the children’s foster parents have provided them with

the loving, safe, stable, and nurturing environment they require, and the children are

thriving in their care. The record reflects that the foster parents have provided for

the children’s therapeutic and medical needs and are actively involved in the

37
children’s education. There is also evidence that Zane, Gabriel, and Violet are well

bonded to their foster parents, who want to adopt the children, Gabriel is excited

about the possibility that his foster parents will adopt him, and Zane and Violet are

open to the idea. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 (recognizing child’s present and

future physical and emotional needs, present and future emotional and physical

dangers to child, parental abilities of persons seeking custody, plans for child by

individuals seeking custody, child’s desires, and stability of home or proposed

placement as best interest factors); see also In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 770 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“Evidence that a child is well-cared for

by a foster family or a proposed adoptive placement, is bonded to the proposed

placement, and has spent minimal time in the presence of the child’s parent is

relevant to the best interest determination and, specifically, is relevant to the child’s

desires.”).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding,

we conclude the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that

termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of Zane, Gabriel, and

Violet. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

Mother argues that her rights should not be terminated because there is

evidence that she is bonded with the children, especially Violet, and she contacted

Zane on the eve of trial in an effort to connect and communicate with Zane and

38
Violet. In view of the entire record, however, this evidence is not so significant it

could have prevented the trial court from forming a firm belief or conviction that

termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Id.

We overrule Mother’s first issue.

Conservatorship

In her third issue, Mother argues the trial court abused its discretion by

appointing the Department as the children’s sole managing conservator.

Conservatorship determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and

will be reversed only if the decision is arbitrary and unreasonable. In re J.D.G., 570

S.W.3d 839, 856 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). An order

terminating the parent-child relationship divests a parent of legal rights and duties

with respect to the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.206(b); In re J.D.G., 570

S.W.3d at 856. Once we overrule a parent’s challenge to an order terminating her

parental rights, the trial court’s appointment of the Department or another person as

the child’s sole managing conservator may be considered a “consequence of the

termination.” In re J.D.G., 570 S.W.3d at 856.9

9
When the parental rights of all living parents of a child are terminated, the trial court
must appoint a “competent adult, the Department of Family and Protective Services,
or a licensed child-placing agency as managing conservator of the child.” TEX. FAM.
CODE § 161.207(a).

39
Because we have overruled Mother’s challenge to the trial court’s decrees

terminating her parental rights to Zane, Gabriel, and Violet, the decrees divested

Mother of her legal rights and duties to these children. See TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 161.206(b) (stating order terminating the parent-child relationship divests parent

of legal rights and duties with respect to child); In re J.D.G., 570 S.W.3d at 856.

Consequently, Mother does not have standing to challenge the portions of the

decrees appointing the Department as the sole managing conservator of Zane,

Gabriel, and Violet. In re J.D.G., 570 S.W.3d at 856 (affirming termination of

mother’s parental rights and holding that mother, who had been divested of her legal

rights to child, did not have standing to challenge conservatorship determination).

We overrule Mother’s third issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s decrees of termination.

Veronica Rivas-Molloy
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.

40