In the Interest of M.C. and J.R. v. the State of Texas

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-25-00232-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C. and J.R.

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24-05-07582

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a judgment terminating Mother’s and Father’s parentchild relationships with their two children, following a jury’s affirmative findings

on predicate grounds and best interest. The two children in question and discussed

in the appeal are James and May (collectively “the Children”).1 While they share the

same mother, that is not true of their respective fathers. Mother appeals from a

To protect the identity of the children, we use a pseudonym to refer to the children and the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

judgment terminating her rights to James and May, and Father appeals from a

judgment terminating his rights to James only. 2

The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds

exist for termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and that termination of

their parental rights would be in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D)(E)(P), (2). Both Mother and Father challenge the legal and

factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the best interest finding. In three

separate issues, Mother challenges the denial of her Motion to Retain and for

Extension of Dismissal Deadline, granting of May’s Alleged Father’s Motion for

General Extension and to Set New Dismissal Date and severance of May’s Father’s

case, and the appointing of the Department as permanent managing conservator of

the Children.

As more fully discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s Order of

Termination as to Mother and Father.

Background

In May 2024, the Department of Family and Protective Services (“the

Department”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to

the Children. The Department supported its petition with the affidavit of its

The action to terminate May’s father’s parent-child relationship was severed from this case and is not part of this appeal.

investigator, Eric Aponte (“Aponte”). Aponte’s affidavit set out the information

leading to the Children’s removal.

According to Aponte’s affidavit, the Department received an initial referral

alleging the neglectful supervision of the Children. The report stated that Father was

in the hospital for attempted suicide, and that he would go on “shooting rampages,

shooting cars and landlord[’]s property” while leaving the Children unattended in

the camper they lived in. The report further indicated that the Children were left

unattended in the camper for hours at times, and Father and Mother were believed

to consume methamphetamines and cocaine in the Children’s presence.

The report further stated that the camper was unclean and that the shower in

the camper was inoperable. Additionally, Aponte stated that there was domestic

violence in the home, May intervened in the fights, Mother has failed to seek medical

treatment for May, Mother withdrew May from school, and Mother and Father drove

around the country to evade the Department’s investigation.

The report indicated that Aponte went to the property where he observed

James, in a dirty diaper, and James’s chest, hands and face were dirty. May had

recently returned from school and was clean and in clean clothes. Aponte spoke with

Mother and she denied the allegations, and she refused to allow the Children to be

interviewed. Aponte spoke with Father, who denied the shooting and drug abuse,

although he acknowledged a physical altercation in December 2023.

The report indicated that Aponte and his supervisor observed the residence

from the outside and through the windows, and noted the residence consisted of two

travel trailers connected. It appeared water was leaking from the underside of the

trailers, and parts of the bottom of the trailers were hanging. They observed the

interior ceiling coming down in one trailer, and both had tarps over the top. The

interior was filled with trash, and the bed observed in one of the trailers had no

sheets. [1CR31] A dog leash hung from the ceiling, and it had a foul odor. The report

stated that the conditions of the home posed a threat for the overall health and safety

of the Children.

Trial Evidence

The jury trial on the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights

began in May 2025.

May Nichols, the Department’s supervisor of this case, testified that the

investigator was Eric Aponte. Nichols stated that Aponte was fairly new to the

Department and had not done removals before, so she assisted and supervised him

closely on this case.

According to Nichols, the allegations in this case were neglectful supervision.

She explained that Aponte went to the home first and photographed the Children.

After seeing the photos, she had concerns about the cleanliness of the Children and

the environment that was visible. Aponte returned to the home, with Nichols, to

speak with the family and see if they would cooperate with the Department.

However, the family was unwilling to cooperate, so the Department decided to seek

the Children’s removal, and it was granted.

On the day of removal, both parents admitted to methamphetamine use days

prior, but they still seemed to be under the influence. Nichols testified that the

Children were with a caregiver, and when she returned the Children, the caregiver

also appeared under the influence. Once removed, the Children were placed with

Dustin Tinlin, Father’s brother.

Tyler Hall, a sergeant with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, testified

that he is familiar with Father following a traffic stop in 2019. Hall stopped Father

for a traffic violation and during the stop while Hall was at his patrol car, Father ran

from the car. Hall pursued and eventually called for assistance from other units, but

they initially could not locate Father. Father was eventually arrested, though he tried

to run away again, so he was arrested for the active warrants and evading on foot.

Caleb Reitzel, a lieutenant with the Precinct 1 Constable’s Office testified that

he is the Lieutenant over the crisis intervention mental health unit and the civil

division. Reitzel testified that the crisis intervention health unit responds to calls

about threats of suicide, suicide, attempted suicide, and other calls related to mental

health diagnosis. In addition to his peace officer training, he received special training

to respond to crisis intervention calls. He explained that he is trained in evaluating

if someone should be subject to an emergency detention order based on the person’s

actions.

Reitzel testified that he recalled meeting Mother and Father on the night of

May 13, 2024, a time he was working as a sergeant on night shift over the crisis

intervention mental health unit. When he arrived, he saw two children, a large pile

of trash, a single-story residence that was on fire, two RVs facing each other, and

trash throughout the yard. He noted that a machete was on the ground along with a

spent shotgun shell casing among other trash. Reitzel’s body camera video of the

incident was admitted into evidence and played. Reitzel testified that Mother poured

water on Father and in retaliation, Father busted the window of the truck. Father

stated that “he wasn’t handicapped but mentally, maybe.”

Reitzel testified that Mother was being “kind of erratic” and based on her

appearance and movements, it was his experience this indicated he was dealing with

someone that uses narcotics. He said the safety hazards included the glass all over,

the unsheathed machete lying on the ground between the two trailers, and the home’s

cluttered condition.

Katie McKinney, a teacher at Creighton Elementary testified that she was

May’s second-grade teacher. McKinney testified that she was concerned about

May’s medical issue as her documents indicated that she suffered with asthma, and

May was often absent with upper respiratory illnesses. May had thirty-four absences

that year.

McKinney indicated that May’s clothes were not always clean, and her shoes

were typically falling apart, though she was dressed appropriately for the weather.

McKinney testified that she could hear May wheezing, and she coughed a lot. She

was concerned once when May struggled to breathe and left in an ambulance but

returned to school the next day with no medicine. May was still wheezing and

coughing a lot.

Despite her absences, McKinney testified that May did well in school, though

she frequently argued with other students. With McKinney one-on-one, May was a

sweet child.

Marcela French, a former nurse at Creighton Elementary, testified that she is

a fourteen-year registered nurse and worked at Creighton for two years. French

recalled caring for May during her time at Creighton particularly on April 13, 2023,

when May was in respiratory distress. French indicated that May was pale and had

labored breaths and was having a hard time breathing. French’s notes indicated the

same, and included that May stated that she had been coughing all morning and had

wheezing with coarse crackles. Her notes indicated that Mother was contacted but

did not have a ride to the school, and Mother was informed that EMS was being

called. French monitored May’s oxygen level, and while a normal oxygen level is

between 95 to 100%, May’s oxygen level at its lowest was 87%. The ambulance

came, and May was given medication and oxygen, then they took her to the hospital.

French testified that she was surprised and concerned to see May the next day

because she had not heard from Mother about the hospital visit’s outcome, and she

did not receive any medication if May needed it during school. French’s notes

indicated that May was sent to the nurse’s office again due to wheezing, coughing

and retractions. The notes indicated that Mother was contacted and stated that May

was diagnosed with bronchitis, was on a steroid, and that Mother would pick up her

inhaler. Although Mother stated that emergency room medical providers indicated

that May could return to school, French informed Mother of the need for medical

clearance before returning to school. Mother stated that the emergency room

informed her that May would be wheezing for a while and that she is okay. French

informed Mother that May was not medically stable to be at school due to retractions

and her oxygen level. Mother indicated that she would take May for another

evaluation and bring the necessary paperwork. Father picked up May from school

and informed French that May does not have an inhaler due to not needing one. The

notes indicated that Father was given an asthma plan and informed he should give it

to the physician. Father indicated that he understood.

Medical records from May’s April 13, 2023 hospital visit were admitted as

evidence and French testified that the records indicate that May was prescribed an

albuterol inhaler. French testified that after sending May home, May was withdrawn

from school.

French testified that she saw May this school year at a different school and

that May looked healthy, well taken care of, and there was a brightness to her eyes.

French indicated that she was concerned when May was withdrawn from school

because she did not know who would care for May. May has had asthma incidents

this year, but she had an inhaler and an action plan, and she did not have trouble

getting her care.

Father testified that he is James’s father and that Tinlin is Father’s halfbrother. He indicated that May is Mother’s daughter, though he has been in the role

of stepdad since she was six years old. Father testified that the Children had been

living in terrible conditions, and they could have gotten hurt. He acknowledged that

James is currently staying with Mr. Hailey, and that Mr. Hailey and Tinlin will keep

James and May safe.

Father acknowledged that he has a substance abuse history that started when

he was fourteen when he used amphetamines or methamphetamines. He testified that

he had “one dirty” urinalysis when he used methamphetamine but denied using

cocaine during this case. Father understood that using drugs creates a risk for

children such as putting them in bad environments and having hazardous things

around.

Father testified that he started substance abuse therapy but does not know if

he was unsuccessfully discharged. He stated that his completion of individual

counseling is “debatable” because his contract said that he had to go to counseling

for three to six months, but he stopped going after nine months. Even though it says

that he did not complete counseling, he stated that he went longer than he was

supposed to.

Father testified that he was arrested a few weeks before trial for an October

2024 assault. He also acknowledged that he had seven tickets but has been paying

them off and he believed only three remained. Evidence of Father’s criminal history

was admitted into evidence. Father testified that he was arrested on May 4, 2016, for

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm. Father did not recall anything

about the arrest and does not think he was under the influence. He was given deferred

adjudication as punishment. He acknowledged that the document states that in

March 2017, a motion to adjudicate Father was filed because he committed an

assault with bodily injury, but he denied that it was correct. He stated that the

document also indicates that he admitted smoking marijuana and failed to submit to

urinalysis. At the time, Father’s conditions were amended to add more counseling

sessions, and the document indicates that in April 2019, a motion to adjudicate

Father was filed because he was not following the rules. Father testified that he does

not recall these details but confirmed this is what the document states. The document

also indicates that Father violated the terms of his community supervision,

committed an offense in Killeen, admitted to marijuana use, failed to submit to

urinalysis, failed to go to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings ordered by the Court, and

failed to complete substance abuse counseling. In response, Father stated, “Correct.

I guess.”

Father agreed that his conditions were amended again to add substance abuse

counseling and additional community service hours. Father recalled the State moved

to adjudicate him again but does not remember why. He acknowledged that he was

sentenced to prison but went to the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility

(SAFPF) for about nine months for drug treatment. Father indicated that he was

sober for two or three years thereafter.

Father stated that he did not recall being charged with possession of

methamphetamine, and he did not recall Officer Crowder arresting him for it. The

document indicated that the charge was dismissed but he did not recall if it was

dismissed as part of a plea bargain when he was convicted in another case.

Father did not recall if he was convicted of evading arrest in 2019 as Officer

Hall testified or if he completed twelve hours of community service. He

acknowledged that the document indicates that he was charged with assault on

March 17, 2019.

According to Father, except for the assault, theft, and warrant for tickets, he

has not been arrested since James was born in 2022. Father testified that he has been

trying to make better choices since James was born, and his criminal history reflects

his efforts.

Father testified that he believed that upon completion of the service plan, he

would get unsupervised time with the Children for hours or weekends. Father

indicated that his service plan required that he show proof of income, including any

government assistant programs and proof of housing. Father stated that he eventually

provided his caseworker with proof of government assistance. Father indicated that

he receives $1,000 monthly under disability, which he started receiving halfway

through this case. Father also indicated that he provided a copy of his lease and utility

bills from the home that he lives in with Mother. Together, they can pay rent and

utilities. Father admitted that he received a lump sum of $11,000 in back pay, though

he did not give any money to the caregivers to help support the Children. Father

stated that he put a little over $3,000 in an SRP stock account.

Father indicated that he communicates with his caseworker regularly and

takes random drug tests. Father stated that he last took a drug test a week or two ago,

but he had not received the results. Father testified that he completed a substance

abuse assessment, and it was recommended that he enroll in group drug counseling.

He testified that he is in HEROES, as part of his sobriety plan, and he gets counseling

and talks to others who are struggling. He could not recall who he is working with

at HEROES and believed he has had three individual sessions. He did not know if

the person he works with is a licensed professional counselor, and he admitted to

attending group sessions.

Father admitted that he was required to attend individual counseling, but he

stopped attending around the time of the death of his mother; but he still sees a

therapist in the HEROES program. He testified that he completed the psychological

evaluation and parenting classes.

Father testified that it was difficult for him to clean the property where he and

the Children lived because he had a broken leg and he admitted to using drugs at the

time. Father explained they had two trailers because he “wasn’t living right” and

used one as “a clubhouse” to keep drugs and bad things away from the Children.

Father admitted that he smokes cigarettes and vapes but claimed he only does so

outside and is at least twenty to thirty feet away from May. He acknowledged it

would be best to stop smoking in front of her altogether.

Father testified that James is happy, and he wants James at his home or to

have some rights to him. He indicated that he would do what is necessary to meet

James’s emotional needs, including enrolling him in therapy.

Father testified that when he was fourteen, his biological dad gave him drugs

and used drugs with him. Father confirmed that he dropped the Children off to his

father in May 2024. He acknowledged that he did not seek help for depression until

the Department removed the Children.

Father testified that he had two girlfriends since this case started and has lived

in four different places. He admitted that leaving a machete, shell casings, and

broken glass around was not in the best interest of James and May. He agreed that

leaving the Children with someone displaying erratic behavior is also not in the

Children’s best interest. He testified that though he does not want to lose his parental

rights, he did state that relinquishing them might be in the Children’s best interest,

out of fear they would go to a foster home.

Father testified that it took approximately three to four months for the property

with the two trailers to look the way it did in the photos when the Children were

removed. He admitted that May is likely traumatized by the living conditions at the

trailers. Father stated that to address May’s trauma issues, he is in favor of her seeing

a therapist, but he does not believe that James needs a therapist. While Father

acknowledged that he needed to quit smoking and that smoking and asthma do not

go together, he prioritized quitting drugs and getting sober though he plans to quit

smoking. Father admitted smoking one to two packs of cigarettes a day depending

on his stress level.

Father testified that his relationship with Mother’s father was consistent, and

they celebrated James’s birthday and Christmas at his home. He stated while in

therapy with Victor Love, they addressed his temper, anger management, and drug

use. He attended sessions with Love individually and with Mother. Together, Mother

and Father worked on getting along and how to deal with problems. Father testified

that Love terminated him after he missed two sessions while planning a funeral.

Father stated that when May was withdrawn from school following her

hospital visit, she was enrolled in school online. During this time, they went on a

two-month, cross-country road trip and they received a letter from the Department.

Although Father is currently receiving treatment at HEROES, he started at RCD

Services but was unsuccessfully discharged for not attending sessions and not paying

attention. Father admitted to starting treatment again one month before trial.

Father testified that he visited with the Children once a week for an hour and

they paint, do puzzles, go to the children’s museum or places like Main Event and

Dave & Buster’s. He brings snacks for the Children, along with diapers and wipes

for James and helped potty train him.

Father stated that he has worked for Mr. Hailey on and off since he was

released in 2020 and during this case. That work accounted for some income that he

reported to the Department. Father indicated that he has had contact with James and

May outside of the Department but did not tell the Department that.

Father described a motorcycle accident where he hit his head and dislocated

his jaw. He stated that he was traveling sixty mph, and he was hit by a vehicle going

eighty mph. He was wearing a helmet but has had memory issues since the accident.

To get the Children back, Father stated that he is participating in the HEROES

program and has the support of his family to stay sober, including the support of

Mother. He admitted that he does not have a relapse prevention plan.

Randy Crowder, a peace officer and deputy for Montgomery County

Constable Precinct 4 testified that he is familiar with Father based on an encounter

on June 26, 2019. Crowder stopped Father while he was on a motorcycle after Father

crossed four lanes without signaling. Crowder got the impression that Father was

going to run from him. During the stop, Father was arrested for possessing

methamphetamine.

Victor Wayne Love, Mother’s and Father’s individual and family counselor,

testified that both were referred to him through the Department. He testified that he

is a licensed marriage and family therapist, a licensed chemical dependency

counselor, and a licensed sex offender treatment provider. Love testified that Father

was referred to him by the previous caseworker and he started individual counseling

on June 12, 2024. He first saw Mother on October 11, 2024, and then both as a

couple the same day.

Father attended twenty-two sessions and missed ten. Mother attended ten

individual sessions and missed five. They participated in seven family sessions and

were no-shows for three. He last saw them both on March 11, 2025. Love testified

that throughout the case he felt as if he had to chase both parents to make sure they

would attend. He stated that he texted and called them “quite a bit” and at the end of

February, the caseworker informed him that they no longer wanted to meet with him

in therapy. Love indicated that he reached out to Mother and Father about them no

longer wanting therapy with him. Father did not reply, and Mother stated that she

wanted to continue therapy with her previous individual therapist, but that they

would attend family therapy with him. Love noted that Mother and Father were

discharged after not making much progress towards their therapy goals.

Love testified that he observed visits between the parents and the children and

described Father as “hot and cold.” There were times that Father was very playful

with the Children, and other times he sat back or laid on the couch and was

uninvolved.

Love testified that Mother was more active during the visits, but on several

visits Mother and May would lie on the floor, and Mother would try to whisper to

May. The caseworker stopped this because the parents may be trying to discuss

inappropriate things. Love observed five visits, and at all five visits, May began to

cry but Love did not recall any event or action preceding May crying. James was a

typical toddler but did not seem to like being held by Mother or Father.

Love stated that Mother admitted that the behavior that brought the Children

into the Department’s care was her and Father’s use of methamphetamine, being in

an area where people used drugs, arguing a lot with Father, and possessions being

broken during the arguments. Father reported the same and added that he argued

with neighbors when they came over and stole his possessions. Father admitted that

Mother broke a lot of things like TVs, and that he hit her car with a hammer and

threw a container of water through the windshield that made a hole in the windshield.

Mother and Father did not accept responsibility for the Children’s living conditions.

Instead, they blamed it on an April 2024 flood. Father admitted they would leave the

Children alone for ten to fifteen minutes to run to the corner store.

Love testified that Father indicated that during an argument with Mother that

Father put all her prescription medication in his mouth to scare her as if he was trying

to kill himself. Father indicated that he spit the pills out, but Mother did not know,

and she called the police to get him help. Love testified that Father stated that he was

using marijuana, alcohol and nicotine by the age of twelve, and used

methamphetamine and cocaine by fourteen. Father indicated that by the age of

sixteen he was a full-time drug dealer making $700-$1,500 a week. Father indicated

that he did not consider marijuana a drug because it calmed and relaxed him. Love

stated that Father indicated that he did not have the same attitude about drugs as

other prisoners while in prison, because his intent was either to return to prison

and/or continue to use drugs. Father further indicated that he first used heroin and a

synthetic marijuana while at a halfway house.

Love testified that Mother spoke about dating a man ten years older than her

when she was fourteen, finding her mother deceased after she had been deceased for

about a month, and she spoke of being sexually assaulted after being given a date

rape type of drug.

Love stated that Mother reported using drugs early on during this case, but not

during the time she was working with Love. Mother admitted that she liked using a

certain type of marijuana. Love stated that he reviewed Mother’s psychological

evaluation, and he did not see anything that would make her a candidate for medical

marijuana. Love confirmed that Mother was in substance abuse treatment with the

HEROES program.

Love recalled one instance where the parents were untruthful with him.

According to Love, Mother and Father arrived for a session and he saw them eating

in the car. Father later asked to be excused from his therapy session claiming that

neither had eaten and were hungry.

Love testified that Father told him several times that he started substance

abuse treatment, but Love found it was untrue. Between June and March, Father

indicated that he started treatment at least five times. Though Father said on several

occasions that he preferred a clean home and vehicle, Love testified that his vehicle

was dirty, cluttered, and filthy with at least six cell phones scattered around along

with food containers. And although Mother reported that she cleaned the home and

was driving for Uber, Love did not believe that her vehicle could be cleaned quickly.

Mother also indicated that she was a sales representative for The Houston Chronicle,

Cutco, and Mary Kay, and that she was a dancer but did not want to return to it.

Father indicated that he worked in welding, construction, HVAC, heavy equipment

work, and a hauling business.

According to Love, Mother and Father appeared to be together at times as they

were together a lot, answered each other’s cell phones and lived together. However,

they also indicated that they were in relationships with other people and not just a

couple at times. Love stated that when they were not together, Father was very upset

and wanted to be in a relationship with Mother.

Love testified that he spoke with Mother and Father about budgeting, but

Father was dismissive of the topic and only worked with him briefly once on that

issue. Love would be surprised if Mother or Father used any budgeting information

that he had provided to maintain the home. Love stated that he went to their home,

a mobile home, but he only saw the kitchen and den. That was the only area that he

observed and it looked appropriate. When Love first entered the home, it smelled of

spoiled meat. Though he did not see other areas of the home, neither Mother nor

Father prevented Love from looking at it. The home had electricity, appeared to have

water, and was tidy. Love indicated that Father presented with “a pretty foul body

odor as if he was not bathing, showering, [or] using good hygiene.” Father indicated

that money for the house came from disability backpay; he was getting a truck

repaired and planned to purchase “the fastest production motorcycle that he could

buy.” Father was often distracted from what Love was trying to accomplish on any

subject; Father was very focused on driving a motorcycle 200 miles per hour. When

Love urged Father to consider taking care of himself and his family, Father said that

he would just get life insurance.

Love testified that Father did not follow through on important tasks like

starting substance abuse treatment, but he paid thousands to repair a truck that he

never obtained. Father also did not follow through on getting his prosthetic leg fixed

so he would not damage his left leg further, which Love addressed with him more

than once.

Love stated that he tried to go over anger management with Father, but he

could not accomplish it with him. Love further stated that he did not see any changes

in Mother’s or Father’s behavior or maturity levels. Love testified that Mother took

accountability once when she indicated that she felt guilty about using drugs with a

neighbor. Both Mother and Father made excuses mostly about the condition of the

trailers that they blamed on a flood. Neither Parent took ownership or responsibility

for the case with the Department.

Love testified that he observed five one-hour family visits, and half a dozen

visits that were five to fifteen minutes. During the sessions, Mother would get James

food, drinks, play with him, and hug him. Though the relationship seemed distant,

Mother put in a great amount of effort, it just was not reciprocated. This could have

been typical behavior of a two-year old. Love did not recall being concerned about

what he observed between Mother and James.

Based on Father’s years of drug use, Love opined that Father has an addiction.

Love indicated that if Mother used drugs since she was teenager, he believed she

also has an addiction. Neither has worked through their addiction, and Love stated

that it is not safe for the Children to be left in their care if they are still using drugs.

Kelly Kuhn testified that she is a recovery support peer specialist with

HEROES, the Houston Emergency Response Opioid Engagement. She testified that

she is a woman in recovery and has been sober for six and a half years. This is

required to become a peer support specialist, and she also had to take a 56-hour

course and do 500 hours. She has been a peer coach for five years and worked with

over 1,500 people. Kuhn testified that Mother has been engaged with HEROES since

May of the year before and that Kuhn sees Mother at Wednesday group sessions.

Both sessions are virtual though there is an option to attend the individual sessions

in person.

Kuhn explained that participants must first admit they have a problem and

want help. Participants must then call in and they are screened to confirm if they are

a good fit for the program. They are then enrolled and connected to the necessary

services.

Kuhn stated that in addition to group therapy, Mother received individual

counseling with a licensed counselor, Maria Carballo. Kuhn observed that Mother

puts in the work and asks for help when needed. She believes that Mother has been

successful in the program. Kuhn testified that as her recovery coach, she believes

Mother has made lifestyle changes by attending group sessions, being alert and

active in the groups, reaching out and talking to Kuhn, and being employed. Kuhn

stated that they do not verify employment and do not conduct drug tests. She was

unaware of Mother participating in any other programs. HEROES is not a service

the Department provides. Mother can continue to participate in the service beyond

the life of the case.

Kuhn testified that Mother spoke to her about Mother’s relapse in January,

and she increased her treatment services to recover. Kuhn indicated that she does not

know if she was informed of Mother’s relapse after the Department learned of it.

She is only aware of one relapse. Mother’s counselor would discuss a relapse

prevention plan with Mother, and to Kuhn’s knowledge, Mother is still engaged in

counseling and group sessions. HEROES does not offer any other recovery-type

services.

Kuhn stated that she believed Mother had the tools to maintain sobriety and

the willingness to do so. Mother has been consistent in her participation, and she

participated in the weekly sessions. Kuhn acknowledged that the HEROES activity

tracker indicated a three-month period that Mother did not attend individual, support

group, or educational group sessions. Kuhn confirmed that the activity tracker

further indicated that Mother had not been to an individual counselor since

September 2024 and that she had not attended individual counseling for

approximately nine months. Kuhn agreed that the activity tracker indicated that

Mother was consistent in attending education group, support group, and individual

counseling from May 30, 2024 through October 2024.

Kuhn testified that Father is enrolled with HEROES but she is not his recovery

coach and not permitted to discuss Father.

Kuhn agreed that based on her experience, individuals in recovery should stay

away from all substances, including marijuana and alcohol. Kuhn testified that she

did not recommend that anyone she is coaching be in a relationship with someone

using drugs. Kuhn indicated that notes from HEROES indicate that Mother was

drinking, which HEROES knew of.

Grandfather, Mother’s father and the Children’s maternal grandfather,

testified that he is asking for termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights

because he believes they have endangered the Children, and it is in the Children’s

best interest. He stated that he believes the children have suffered and their needs

have been neglected.

Grandfather testified that he has had experience with the Department in the

past beginning around 1998. He stated that the case involved his ex-wife, Crystal.

He testified that he had issues with alcohol and Crystal had issues with drugs. During

an argument, Grandfather was accused of assault. Grandfather admitted that he had

a drinking problem at one time and was referred to Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”).

He met Crystal through mutual friends that were in the AA program. He indicated

that he does not drink at all anymore and does not believe that he has a drinking

problem anymore. Grandfather then stated that he is not sober and drinks

occasionally but has not had a problem with alcohol since early 2000. He admitted

that he pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor in the assault case.

Grandfather then admitted that he was charged with driving while intoxicated

in 2002 and 2015. He does not believe that he had an issue with alcohol but only an

issue driving with alcohol.

Grandfather testified that although he appreciates the Children’s caregivers,

and he agrees the Children are settled after experiencing trauma, he would like the

Children placed with him. He does not believe that relocating the Children would be

detrimental to them despite not seeing James in over a year and only seeing May on

Facetime “a few times.” Grandfather testified that the caregivers and the Department

invited him to see the Children, but he has not.

Grandfather indicated that although Mother had a baby at a young age, he did

not know that the alleged father was more than ten years older than Mother. He

recalled meeting the alleged father briefly but was unaware that Mother felt

traumatized by the alleged father. He indicated that Mother came to live with him

towards the end of her pregnancy, but he did not recall telling the Department that

May had contact with the alleged father for a year after the birth. He agreed that their

age difference made the relationship a crime, and he indicated that he spoke with

law enforcement, but the alleged father was incarcerated at the time.

Grandfather testified that he was unaware of the condition of the property that

the Children were living in because he was not allowed on the property. He stated

that when he would call, Mother would come to the front and that did not concern

him. Mother sometimes brought the Children out, and although he noticed that they

were a little underweight, he did mention it. The last time he went to the property he

brought a generator, but he was still never brought to the trailer. Grandfather

indicated that he gave Mother and Father gas money throughout the case, and he

believed he may have been funding their drug habit in the past.

Grandfather testified that he does not recall his second or third cases with the

Department, but his children were in the Department’s custody at one point. His

children were initially placed with a maternal aunt, Stephanie Lau, but when she was

unable to care for them, the children went into foster care temporarily. Grandfather

stated that he took a drug test and got his children back. The children were eight and

six at the time.

Grandfather agreed that it would be a concern if the Children were place with

people who had a criminal history. He admitted that he attended a court hearing for

the case in October, but he kept up with the case through Mother.

According to Grandfather, he first reached out to Aponte, the caseworker, and

requested to be considered for placement. Grandfather stated that the Children were

with an agency-adoptive family. He stated that he was contacted again and given an

incorrect court date.

Grandfather stated that he spoke with the next caseworker, Ms. Brewster,

about being a placement for the Children and she explained the Department’s

approval process. He indicated that he provided the necessary information and the

last time he spoke with Brewster was when she conducted a home study. No one

from CASA or a third-party contractor conducted an actual home study evaluation,

and Brewster did not follow-up with the results from her home study.

After Brewster, Grandfather testified that he spoke with Ms. Callaway about

being a placement and about the home study. According to Grandfather, Callaway

did not know the outcome of the home study conducted by Brewster, so she

conducted another home study. Callaway did not conduct another home study, and

Grandfather testified he was never told that the Department denied his home study.

Grandfather indicated that he was never told that he could not be a placement for the

Children, and he did not follow-up with Callaway. Grandfather said that Mr. Browne

came to his home recently and conducted a third home study.

Grandfather testified that although he spoke with Tinlin about visiting May,

they never scheduled a specific visit. He stated that they planned a time to see May

for her birthday, but he could not make it. He recalled that he and Hailey planned on

two occasions to visit with James, but once Grandfather did not go, and the other

time Hailey was going out of town. Grandfather did not follow-up to schedule

another visit.

Grandfather testified that Mother stayed with him since the removal for four

to six weeks at his invitation. Mother later went to stay with a friend because they

worked together. Grandfather denied that he kicked Mother out and stated that

Mother went to her friend’s home on her own.

Grandfather indicated that he celebrated Christmas 2023 with Mother, Father

and the Children and that the Children appeared healthy, safe, happy and clean. He

stated that Mother and Father looked fine and did not appear to be in the throes of

addiction. Grandfather testified that in the Spring of 2024, he became concerned

because they came to his home to use his water. He indicated that at times, Mother

and Father lived without water or electricity. Grandfather stated that he spoke with

Mother and Father about his concerns, and he was told that they were living on the

Tinlin’s property.

Grandfather reiterated that he does not believe the Children should be returned

to Mother and Father. He testified that he feels that Mother and Father need to

maintain sobriety for a longer time before James and May are returned to them, but

both parents should have contact with James and May if they are doing the right

thing. If James and May were in his care, Grandfather stated that he would require

Mother and Father to show proof of sobriety and income to see the Children, and he

would monitor the visit. He believed that the same protections should be in place if

Tinlin or Hailey have conservatorship of James and May.

Based on his observations of Mother and May, Grandfather testified that they

have beautiful interactions, and he has not observed May fearing Mother. He

testified that Mother’s relationship with James is loving, and he has not observed a

situation where Mother did not meet his needs.

Grandfather testified that he last saw Mother with May or James about one

year ago, and he had not seen them together during this case. He indicated that he

does not know how either child relates to Mother currently. Grandfather admitted

that when Mother and Father came to his home to take showers and do laundry, he

did not know the situation, although Mother and Father indicated that they did not

have water staying on the Tinlin’s property. He agreed that Mother and Father had

problems paying their bills previously, and it was reasonable to assume they came

to him for help and money. Grandfather stated that he did not believe that James and

May should live in a situation without water or electricity.

Grandfather admitted that in the past he stated that Tinlin is a good candidate

for May if she had to stay with someone but not permanently. Grandfather agreed

that Tinlin made it clear that he would never prevent Grandfather from seeing May.

Grandfather admitted that he told Hailey that he wanted James to stay with

him, and Hailey has offered him the opportunity to visit James when Grandfather is

available. Grandfather agreed that he canceled scheduled visits. Grandfather

indicated that he told Hailey that James is thriving in his placement and is better off

with Hailey than with Mother at this time. Grandfather acknowledged that he stated

that Mother and Father were too busy to discuss James and May, and he preferred

that they remain in their current placement. He indicated that in six months, Mother

may be able to take the Children and provide a safe, stable environment. He admitted

that he does not think Mother has made many sacrifices for James and May, and he

believed the caregivers have put the Children’s needs above their own. Grandfather

testified that he believed the caregivers will do everything to make sure James and

May maintain a relationship even though they are living in separate homes if they

were to keep them permanently.

Next, Scott Martin, a detective with the Montgomery County Precinct 1

Constable’s Office and former patrol deputy, testified that he first became familiar

with Father when he charged him with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in

2016. Martin indicated that he responded to a robbery and identified Father at the

premises as a suspect. After an investigation, Martin testified that he determined

Father committed the robbery and he was arrested. Martin indicated that two guns

were recovered from the residence where the robbery occurred, and the District

Attorney ultimately accepted the charges against Father. Martin indicated that he did

not know the disposition of the case.

Martin recalled that he met Father again in an incident that involved the arrest

of a female at an abandoned home known for drug use. He met Father a third time

during the incident involving Sergeant Hall.

Beatrice Mendez, a self-employed housekeeper, testified that Mother is her

daughter’s best friend, and she employed Mother from June 2024 through Christmas

to clean houses. Mendez stated that Mother worked three to four days a week and

she was paid between $250 and $350 weekly. Mother also lived with her during this

time but returned to her father’s home in December 2024. Mother did not pay rent

but worked in exchange for rent. During the time that Mother worked for her,

Mendez testified that Mother consistently showed up for work and that she did not

have any customer complaints.

According to Mendez, the Department did not contact her about Mother, but

she recalled Mother requesting an employment letter.

Next, Mother testified that James and May are her son and daughter and that

Grandfather is her father. Mother admitted that she relapsed on January 10th when

she used cocaine. Mother denied using any other drugs or using illegal substances

since then. Mother testified that she has a medical prescription for marijuana called

the CUPs system and that her diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and PTSD allows her

to get medical marijuana. Mother acknowledged that she has not been diagnosed

with PTSD by a physician but that she had a medical prescription for marijuana.

Mother indicated that she uses marijuana in the form of edibles to help her sleep.

Mother informed Callaway in March of her prescription.

According to Mother, to get the medical marijuana card, she had to schedule

a virtual appointment, speak with a physician for approximately thirty minutes to

one hour explaining why she thinks she needs medical marijuana. Mother testified

that with the card, she can go online or to a dispensary and present the card to obtain

it.

Mother admitted that she has a criminal record and certified copies of public

records of her criminal history were admitted as evidence. Mother testified that in

2018 she was charged with possession of marijuana but not sentenced. At that time,

May was with Mother’s family. Mother admitted that she was arrested for possession

of a controlled substance, Xanax, but the charge was dismissed because the

document indicated that she was convicted in another case. She did not recall if it

was part of a plea bargain.

In November 2019, Mother admitted that she was arrested again for

possession of marijuana in Montgomery County, and her sentence was imposed in

2020. During this time, May was with her family.

In 2021, Mother was arrested for possession of a controlled substance,

amphetamine, but that charge was dismissed because she was convicted in another

case in Fort Bend County for criminal trespass. She admitted that she was sentenced

to twenty days in jail, and May was with Father during that time.

Although Mother initially testified that she used marijuana on March 27th, the

day Father’s mother passed away, test results indicated that Mother tested positive

for marijuana on March 24, 2025. Mother testified that she used marijuana before

Father’s mother’s passing, but stated there were no other times where she relapsed.

Mother stated that she had been in a mental health facility twice. Mother

recalled that she was eighteen during one stay but could not recall her age during the

most recent stay. To deal with her mental health, Mother testified that she has

removed herself from certain places, is working on things to better herself and set

goals. She testified that she is not on any medication except her marijuana edibles.

Mother admitted to physical altercations with Father, but testified that it is

rare, and the last incident occurred when they lived in the RVs. According to Mother,

Father would break and throw stuff like his earlier testimony of him breaking the

windshield of her car with a hammer. Mother later admitted that both she and Father

damaged the RVs and property with hammers but that she was not high, just mad,

and the Children witnessed this. Mother further admitted that Father would shoot his

weapon and do target practice.

Mother testified that she understood that James’s and May’s living situation

was unacceptable, and their safety was at risk because of their surroundings and

Mother’s and Father’s behavior. According to Mother, she was heavy into her drug

use while living on the property, and others living on the property were drug users

who introduced her to it. She indicated that once she learned drug users and dealers

lived on the property, she could not leave and was ashamed to reach out to her father.

Mother denied a history of alcohol abuse and testified that she attended AA with a

peer group but not for herself.

Mother indicated that she completed individual counseling with Maria and

attended couples counseling with Love. According to Mother, it was only suggested

that she attend counseling with Love, but she is back in individual counseling with

Maria. Mother testified that she was ordered to complete a psychological evaluation,

which she did as part of her service plan. She indicated that she admitted to an issue

with alcohol abuse in the evaluation. Notes from Mother’s evaluation were read and

stated that Mother indicated “that marijuana had been her drug of choice since she

was young. However, in 2020 she began to abuse alcohol after her fiancé was killed

by a drunk driver.” The notes further stated that “she does drink today but it is not

binge drinking. She does not drink liquor. She will drink maybe beer. [Mother]

reported that between ’20-’22, she abused alcohol to drown her feelings, grief about

her fiancé and her drinking got to the point where she drank a gallon of whiskey a

day.” Mother agreed that the admission indicated an alcohol problem. Mother further

agreed that she still drinks alcohol, but she does not drink as indicated in the notes.

She further acknowledged that although her coach at HEROES advised that if she

has an additional problem, it is best not to be around any substances, but she still

drinks alcohol occasionally.

Mother agreed that prior to January 2024 and before financial hardships, she

was responsible for providing May, as her primary caretaker, meals, homework

assistance, medical care, emotional support, a stable home environment, and a

nurturing home environment. Mother testified that she provided it all before her

financial hardships, but drug abuse played a role. Mother agreed that at the time of

removal, she had not provided these essentials for May in months.

Mother agreed that May should have had her medication when she was sick

at school. Mother admitted withdrawing May from school shortly after this incident,

but she denied knowing that the Department was investigating at that point. Mother

testified that when she was contacted by the Department, the family was already in

Georgia.

Mother heard and agreed with Grandfather’s statement that neither she nor

Father are ready and should work on themselves more. Mother testified that at the

age of eighteen she was admitted into a psychiatric hospital due to still grieving over

her mother’s death, which was due to a “potential drug overdose” although her death

certificate does not indicate a cause of death. Her mother died when Mother was

sixteen, and Mother found her mother’s body after not hearing from her for about

one month. At the time, May was six months old. Mother testified that when she was

eighteen, she had a hard time, went through a lot, and several things were triggers

for her. She was in the hospital for three to four days, and May was with Mother’s

aunt.

Mother testified that the second time she was in the psychiatric hospital was

in 2023 while living on Tinlin’s property and she voluntarily sought help for her

mental state. She explained that at the time they did not have water, so she could not

shower, and the electricity was cut off several times causing food to spoil. She

remained at the hospital for three days and she was advised to move since where she

was living was not best for her mental health. At that time, Mother testified that

James and May were with Father on the property. Mother indicated that they moved

that week.

Mother stated that May was prescribed Albuterol for her breathing machine,

not an inhaler, when she was younger prior to the emergency room visit. May did

not have a prescription for an inhaler. Mother testified that May’s breathing machine

is possibly in one of the RVs since they moved out quickly. Mother recalled that

May was diagnosed with bronchitis at the emergency room and given steroids.

Mother indicated that she did get May’s prescription for Albuterol either the next

day or the day after and May had it with her but only used it a few times. Mother

stated that the emergency room did not provide her with any documents to keep May

out of school.

Mother testified that the decision to withdraw May and travel across the

country was previously planned, and was not decided because the school nurse

questioned them about May.

Mother stated that she and Father worked with Love on a budget, and they can

support themselves within that budget for their current living conditions. She said

that she and Father worked on the budget in the beginning of January, and it was

very helpful. Mother indicated that she is ready for James and May to return to her

home today as they have their own rooms, food is in the home, it is a clean

environment with water and electricity.

Mother indicated that she is asking that the parent-child relationship not be

terminated and to provide a safe environment she will continue in the program

working on her goals, and she will continue to work and stay in contact with family

who have supported her. She testified that she believed May needed to continue

therapy, and that if James needed therapy she would enroll him. To support Father’s

mental health journey, Mother testified that she would encourage him to continue

seeing a therapist. Mother stated that she is not seeking to terminate Father’s parentchild relationship with James. Mother testified that before the removal she had never

seen a therapist.

Mother stated that she did not have any gummies that morning, and the last

time she had a gummy was one or two weeks ago. Mother indicated that she

discussed her alcohol use with the Department, and the Department did not have any

concerns. She admitted that she should not drink alcohol while in recovery, and it is

not a good idea if her coach says it is not, but she stated that she was not told to cease

drinking alcohol. Mother admitted that during the case she went to a restaurant with

friends, had drinks, and was drugged by a friend. She stated that it was a bad choice,

but she never assumed that she would be drugged by a friend.

Mother indicated that she currently works as an assistant manager at Family

Dollar; she worked until closing, around 11 p.m. the night before and went to bed

around midnight.

Dustin Tinlin, Father’s younger half-brother and May’s caregiver, testified

that he is twenty-three years old and employed with Brush Pro Mulching. He

testified that he and Father lived together all their lives until Father went to live with

their grandmother at the age of fourteen. He and Father lived together again

approximately one month after Father was released from prison. Tinlin testified that

he tried to get Father to do good and get him out of a bad area, so he asked that he

move in with him.

He indicated that he met Hailey through work, and they have since become

good friends. Tinlin testified that he got Father a job with Hailey, and Father did

well with Hailey from September 2020 to April 2021. Father eventually moved out

and about one month later, in May 2021, he met Mother. Father bought an RV and

he and Mother moved it to a childhood friend’s house. Tinlin met May in June 2021.

Tinlin testified that in August or September of 2021, he moved in with his

parents to help care for his father, and at one point, Mother, Father, and May came

to live there also after bouncing around. He stated that he has been Uncle Dustin to

May since day one and that they all lived in the same vicinity for three to four

months. He recalled that Father lost his leg in June or early July of 2021, and James

was born in September 2022. Tinlin testified that he recalled May being taken out of

school and that the Department left a note on his parents’ gate. After that, Tinlin

indicated that the family left, and at that time James was about seven months old. He

indicated that he was told that Father was starting a hotshot business, and the family

was gone for four or five months. James was with Father and Mother the entire time.

Tinlin stated that he saw Mother and Father in an altercation at his parents’

house eating donuts when Mother and Father began shoving and grabbing each other

in the yard. Mother took James from Tinlin’s mother and started walking down the

driveway and May ran behind her. Tinlin stated that Mother did not stop to check on

May but kept walking.

In another altercation, Tinlin testified that Father called him and asked that he

come and “stop her beating him.” When Tinlin arrived, he stated that Father had

marks all over his body, a bite mark, and that Mother and Father were screaming at

each other. Tinlin indicated that May reacted by getting violent, throwing a

controller at Father’s truck, and screaming at Mother and Father.

Tinlin stated that he saw where Mother and Father were living when he

received messages from Mother that their camper flooded. Tinlin stated that he

arrived at the property and the campers were high on a hill and there was no rising

water. Mother and Father were very active, “hyper,” and “all over the place.” After

their sister, Ashley, spoke to Father, both Ashley and Tinlin left.

Tinlin discussed another incident where Father had an emergency detention

order and went to a mental hospital. He was worried about Father, so he went to the

property where the RVs were located and spoke with people at the main house.

According to Tinlin, the people at the main house seemed like they were on drugs

so he went to the area where the RVs were located, and he looked in the kids’ RV.

He stated that he saw James crying but he did not find May. He later learned that

May had put herself on the bus.

Tinlin testified that he then saw Mother wake up and crawl from underneath

one of the bunks towards the back of the kids’ RV. Mother seemed “very out of it”

and she told Tinlin that Father was at the hospital. After seeing all the trash, Tinlin

stated that he was very worried, so he went home, called Hailey, and then called the

Department. An investigator was at his home within three or four hours and James

and May were removed and placed with him.

Tinlin stated that he had a five-month-old daughter at home so to help his wife

with May and James, he took off work for two weeks and his grandmother came

from Austin to help. Tinlin testified that the Children were first taken to a clinic then

brought to his home where they were bathed. Tinlin stated that their clothes were

filthy, including the additional clothes, and while the Department provided a few

clothes, he purchased more. He then indicated that he was concerned because May

was mothering James and would not allow anyone to change his diaper, feed him,

and discipline him. May took care of James as if he was her baby.

Tinlin testified that Hailey was very involved, and at one point James and May

went to live with him for a few weeks though Tinlin was still involved. He stated

that it was determined that James and May were not progressing together, because

May wanted to mother James. It was decided that Tinlin would have May stay with

him for a few weeks to test out if it would work, and May began to open up, be more

playful and behave more like a nine-year-old. He indicated that in addition to him

and his wife, his daughter and May reside with him.

Tinlin indicated that at some point he was concerned about a man that knew

where James and May were placed and was looking for Mother. According to Tinlin,

the man was looking for Mother because he alleged that Mother had withdrawn

money from his account, and she was driving a vehicle paid for by the man. The man

contacted Tinlin’s mother, Father, and Mother. Tinlin stated that he spoke with

Mother about the situation briefly.

Tinlin recalled speaking with Mother in October where she admitted to using

drugs and partying. Mother indicated that her friend and her friend’s boyfriend

drugged her, stole from her, and that she woke up in a hotel with nothing. Tinlin

stated that Mother did not know what drugs they were doing together.

Tinlin indicated that he spoke with Grandfather and offered him visits with

May, but he has never come. Tinlin testified that he wanted to adopt May, and he

thinks that Mother and Father should see James and May when they “clean up and

become an example.” Tinlin indicated that he believed it is important for May to

have a relationship with Mother. He stated that his wife, Krista, is May’s best friend

and full-time caregiver since he works a lot. He admitted that Krista takes May to

90% of her doctors’ appointments but that he takes her also. He indicated that May

is in therapy again after finding a new therapist because she did not like the prior

therapist. He testified that he could provide May with a stable home and will love

her forever.

Tinlin indicated that he never used marijuana with his brother-in-law, but he

used marijuana with Father in 2022 or 2023. He recalled buying marijuana from

Father back in 2022 or 2023 also. He testified that his wife smoked marijuana with

Father long before she was pregnant when they were nineteen or twenty years old.

Tinlin testified that when Mother and Father lived on his parents’ property,

Mother and Father smoked and sold marijuana. While living on the property, Tinlin

indicated that the RV only had electricity and septic, but did not have running water.

Tinlin stated that Father smoked around James and May when they lived on his

parents’ property. Tinlin testified that the first time he went inside the RVs was the

day that he called the Department. He noticed that the RV had a propane tank in the

living room, it smelled, the floor was rotten, and it was very dirty.

Tinlin indicated that he met with the school nurse, and she now has an action

plan and May’s inhaler at school. Tinlin stated that May had a birthday in December,

and he begged Grandfather to come. Grandfather did not come and told Tinlin he

was moving. Tinlin indicated that he did not know Grandfather prior to the case, but

Grandfather has had Tinlin’s contact information since the beginning of the case.

May is up to date on her medical needs and has not been sick other than a few colds

and her asthma is being maintained.

Tinlin testified that he is asking the jury to terminate Mother’s rights to May,

and he is asking to be able to adopt her. He stated that he has taken a drug test during

this case, and he has one arrest on his criminal history for a class A assault that

occurred when he was eighteen. Tinlin admitted that he allowed Father to see May

once on the day after his mother’s funeral, which was not authorized by the

Department.

David Hailey, Father’s former employer and friend, testified that he lives in a

house with his girlfriend, daughter, and James. He stated that Father has worked for

him off and on since 2020 with the last employment being two months ago. Father

performed odd job work for him like cutting grass and trash removal. During this

case, Hailey testified that he helped Mother and Father locate and fix a vehicle.

When the Children were first removed and in the Department’s custody, Hailey

indicated that he bought both Mother and Father phones to communicate with the

Department because neither had a working phone.

Hailey indicated that he did not intend at the beginning to have James in his

care permanently, and he prayed that they would “get their act together and get

[James] back.” Hailey testified that he first met Father shortly after he got out of

prison, and Father worked for Hailey full-time for almost two years. Hailey stated

that Father quit working for him shortly after Father met Mother, and Hailey fussed

at him regularly for coming to work with the strong odor of marijuana. He then saw

Father again around Halloween after his accident. At that time, Father was in a

wheelchair, and Hailey gave him work around his shop. He testified that he next saw

Father after James was born and May worked the haunted woods dressed as a

vampire to scare people.

Hailey indicated that he first babysat James in December 2023 after Mother

and Father got into an argument, and Mother dropped James and Father at Hailey’s

house. Hailey testified that the first thing he did was put James in the tub and cleaned

him. Hailey indicated that James did not have any diapers, wipes, or bottles and his

fingernails and toenails were black. Father was with James the first day but then

someone picked Father up, and three days later both Father and Mother returned to

get James. Hailey did not recall where Mother and Father said they had been. Hailey

indicated that he assumed Father would return the next day, but he was not sure.

Hailey stated that his girlfriend works from home, and she could watch James.

Hailey further indicated that Grandfather stated that Mother would do the same with

May when she was younger.

Hailey stated that when Mother and Father left on the road trip, he prepaid for

a hotel room for the family and paid for a wrecker to get Father’s broken truck towed

off the road to the hotel. Hailey recalled speaking to Tinlin when the Department

removed the Children, and Tinlin was worried about Father hurting himself or dying.

Hailey stated that he went to the RVs to see the living conditions, and it looked as it

did in the video. Hailey indicated that he spoke with Father after the Children were

removed and Father and Mother had resentment towards Tinlin for calling the

Department. Hailey testified that James eats fast as if he is not going to get another

meal sometimes causing him to choke. Hailey admitted that Father eats the same

way though. Father admitted that if James and May were alone in the camper and

May did not know what to do if James choked, it could have been dangerous. Hailey

testified that he observed the same behavior of May parenting James that Tinlin

detailed in his testimony.

Hailey stated that when the Children were initially removed, James had staph,

and both had lice. Hailey testified that the Department gave James a birthday party

and he identified photos of James, May, Mother and Father, along with other photos

of James getting a haircut and visiting the zoo and a carnival. Hailey admitted that

he still communicates with Mother and Father, but he does not think they are safe to

have James and May right now. Hailey indicated that Father did not believe that

Mother would remain sober once “all eyes are off of him and [Mother].” Father then

admitted that he would probably not stay sober if Mother was not.

Hailey testified that he is asking that Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to

James be terminated and that termination is in the best interest of James. Hailey

indicated that he wants to adopt James. Hailey stated that he has spoken with and

invited Grandfather to family functions, but he has never come. James is cared for

by Hailey and his girlfriend and does not attend daycare. He described James as a

rambunctious two and half year old who likes to eat, play, watch Ms. Rachel and

learn. Hailey stated that May seems happy and healthy with Tinlin and she has selfesteem now which she lacked when she was first removed. He intends to maintain

the relationship between May and James if he and Tinlin get the Children. He

acknowledged that he would work with Grandfather to visit James.

Next, Debra Callaway, a conservatorship caseworker for the Department,

testified that her job duties include ensuring the children are in a safe environment

where they are cared for, their needs are being met, and they are receiving necessary

services. Callaway indicated that she also works with the parents to obtain the

resources needed to address the Department’s concerns and track their progress.

Callaway stated that she must also communicate her observations and information

to her supervisor, legal team, and relevant parties. The first goal is typically family

reunification. She indicated that if that changes, they start working towards other

goals, but they must have a plan by the end of the case which typically has a

dismissal date approximately one year after a removal.

Callaway stated that she became involved in this case on September 3, 2024,

and both Mother and Father had court-ordered service plans. Callaway indicated that

substance abuse is included in the service plans and that she does not believe Father

completed his substance abuse based on the testimony, her observations when she

spoke with him, and from the providers. While Mother and Father completed the

ordered psychological evaluations, the service plan requires that they follow the

recommendations of the evaluations. According to Callaway, Mother’s evaluation

recommended parenting classes and that Mother continue the substance abuse

treatment program that included group therapy twice a week, plus individual

substance abuse therapy and mental health individual therapy. Callaway stated that

she does not believe Mother completed individual therapy.

Callaway testified that she does not believe that Mother and Father have stable

housing because initially they were not together, but they began living together

toward the end of fall. Callaway stated that their living situation became more

consistent early that year. Callaway indicated that she was told that they could afford

their new location because Father received social security disability, and in addition

to a monthly payout, he received lump sum back pay. Father also does odd jobs, and

Mother has a job with DoorDash and started working as an assistant manager at

Family Dollar two to three weeks prior. Callaway stated that she received a copy of

the lease and it was written on notebook paper. She indicated that she has concerns

about their housing because shortly after they moved in, Father was picked up during

an immigration raid on the property.

Callaway described May as a bright-eyed, spunky ten-year-old who’s

enjoying her time with the friends she has made at school. She is very bright and

outgoing and loves to play with Tinlin’s daughter who she calls “Sissy.” May is also

described as a very strong self-advocate. Callaway described James as “always just

a happy little boy[]” who loves to learn and listen. She stated that when she sees him,

he has learned a new letter or sound or can count further, and he loves to interact

with people.

Callaway testified that part of her job is meeting with the children privately at

least once a month. Callaway recalled that she met May on September 5, 2024, for

the first time and May made several concerning statements. According to Callaway,

May first described herself as, “I guess I’m like [James]’s mom[]” and she

mentioned that she and James spent most of their time in one trailer and that Mother

and Father spent most of their time in the other trailer. May told Callaway that she

had to be brave for James and that she was left a gun for safety in case someone tried

to break in. May indicated that the pistol was left in a cabinet where she could reach

it, but James could not. Callaway stated that May said that she would go to bed

hungry two or three nights a week or just have Ramen noodles and James would

have a bowl of cereal.

Callaway testified that the main progress that she has seen in May is her

demeanor because she now bounces around when they speak, she allows Callaway

to look over her shoulder while they talk if she is on her tablet, and she is very open

compared to when May would sit across the bed, against the wall, with a pillow

against her. A summary of May’s school records that Callaway prepared was

admitted as evidence. Callaway indicated that the information included was where

May was living, absences, nurse notes, grades, and additional information that was

noteworthy.

Callaway stated that May and James were already separated when she got

involved in the case, but the Department tries to keep siblings placed together, if

possible. She indicated that it is also the policy to consider and do what is best for

the child. Callaway stated that she agrees with how May and James are currently

placed. When she first got involved, the goal was family reunification and at that

time Tinlin and Hailey did not want to adopt. Both caregivers wanted to care for

James and May, provide for their needs, and give Mother and Father time to address

their issues to get them back. As a caseworker, Callaway stated that she must work

on the primary goal of family reunification but also have a backup concurrent goal

where the Children can go long term and permanently if they cannot go home with

their parents. Here, Callaway indicated that she began to look at relatives for

placement including Mother’s maternal aunt, Grandfather, Father’s full and halfsisters, and she attempted to speak with Mother’s sister.

Callaway testified that Mother’s maternal aunt was four hours away, and

when Callaway followed up on a previously denied home study at Grandfather’s

home in October, where she noticed that Mother still had items at the home and was

living there. According to Callaway, after speaking with Grandfather’s wife, she

believed that it was their desire for James and May to remain in their current

placements. By January, both Tinlin and Hailey expressed their desire to adopt May

and James.

Callaway testified that the Department is asking to terminate the parental

rights of Mother and Father and to place May and James with Tinlin and Hailey so

they can be adopted. Callaway stated that if Mother’s and Father’s parental rights

are terminated, the Department becomes the permanent managing conservator.

During that time, the Department will assist Tinlin and Hailey with adoption

preparation to get May and James adopted.

Callaway testified that Mother’s service plan required that she obtain stable

income. According to Callaway, when she first got involved, Mother was cleaning

houses for employment for Mendez, and Mother did this through most of the fall.

Callaway could not verify the employment because Mother failed to provide letters,

and Callaway did not reach out to Mendez. Mother began working for DoorDash in

October and into 2025. Callaway indicated that Mother tried to work for an online

business but quit and eventually started working at Family Dollar approximately

three weeks prior. Mother provided Callaway with her letter of acceptance with

Family Dollar and she has been receiving income.

Callaway stated that she got varying stories on where Mother was living

through December 2024, and although Mother told her about the property where the

Children were removed, Mother never told Callaway the specific reason she left the

property. According to Callaway, Mother did not tell her that she left the property

because it was inappropriate to return the Children there. Mother informed Callaway

that she did not intend to have May and James returned to her while she stayed with

a friend.

Callaway indicated that Mother did complete a housing application in

September. Callaway explained that if there is an intention to return the children to

the home, the Department can bump up the application, but nothing stops a parent

from applying on their own and getting on the waitlist. Callaway further explained

that the Department would not push an application through unless a monitored return

home was approved. Callaway testified that he visited the current home that Mother

and Father share, and it was clean, free of hazards, and appropriate. Callaway agreed

that while the housing is safe, the stability is still to be seen though they have

maintained it for three and a half months.

Callaway agreed that Mother has participated in drug testing when requested

by the Department except for one time. At the time, Mother refused a hair follicle

test because she stated that it violated her religious beliefs. Callaway indicated that

the Department considers HEROES a valid substance abuse treatment program, and

Mother has completed and satisfied the substance abuse treatment program

requirement. Callaway verified Mother’s reengagement with HEROES after her

January relapse, but she is unsure if Mother completed her individual counseling

through HEROES. Callaway stated that she received confirmation from HEROES

that Mother completed her substance abuse treatment and individual therapy. It is

the Department’s position that Mother did not do individual mental health therapy

with HEROES since HEROES is a research program for addressing opioid and

substance abuse. Callaway testified that she explained to Mother that HEROES

therapy was insufficient for the Department to accept, and this is why Mother was

doing therapy with Love. Callaway agreed that Mother completed parenting classes.

Although Mother reenrolled in HEROES for her substance abuse treatment, she has

partially continued with the treatment because communications with Maria Carballo

indicated that Mother was not engaging in all portions of the program on April 14th.

Callaway agreed that someone from HEROES might have testified differently the

day before.

Callaway stated that Mother had supervised visits with James and May once

a week for approximately one hour. Mother brought food and supplies to take care

of the children during the visits and when advised to bring foods with less sugar,

Mother corrected it. During the visits, Callaway stated that Mother engaged with

James and May appropriately and there were no physical safety concerns.

Callaway stated that aside from completing individual therapy, Mother was

still required to demonstrate stable income, the ability to maintain the home for an

extended period, continue individual mental health therapy and continue to address

her relapse. Callaway agreed that Mother has made progress by finding a place to

live, gaining employment and purchasing a vehicle. Callaway stated that

observation-wise, Mother appears more stable now than at the time of removal, and

the Department’s concern is her ability to maintain that.

Regarding Father, Callaway testified that she met with him monthly and

discussed his family plan, progress on his services and getting back into substance

abuse treatment. Callaway stated that she was told that Father enrolled with

HEROES. Callaway agreed that Father’s service plan stated that he needed stable

housing, and he has a home that he has lived in since January. Callaway stated that

Father submitted to random drug tests and completed his parenting class and

psychological evaluation, but inconsistently participated in individual therapy with

Love.

According to Callaway, Father visited James at the Department’s office once

a week for approximately one hour. Father brought snacks for James and the

appropriateness of the snacks was addressed once. Callaway indicated that James

and Father were engaged for the most part, and she did not have any physical safety

concerns for James.

Callaway testified that the Department investigated people that lived on the

caregivers’ property, and a safety plan was put in place that May is not to be alone

with Kenneth Wilson nor is he allowed to be around May if he appears to be under

any influence. This stems from a 2018 charge, and the parents having issues with

him.

Since her placement with Tinlin, Callaway had not had concerns about May’s

grades, attendance, or emotional safety. Callaway indicated that she did have

concerns about May’s emotional safety during visits with Mother because at times

things were said to May that upset her. Callaway believed that Tinlin has answered

May’s questions about the case with age-appropriate language. Callaway believed

that Mother has discussed the case with May during visits.

Callaway testified that the goals changed in this case in December because

Mother and Father still did not have stable housing, stable income, Father was not

engaged in substance abuse treatment, and some drug test results were concerning.

Next, Bryan Johnson, guardian ad litem for May and James, testified that he

is a volunteer appointed by a Judge to look after the child’s best interest and ensure

the Department, caregivers, and parents are doing what they are supposed to do so a

final recommendation can be made in the best interest of the child. Johnson testified

that it is his recommendation to the jury that the parents’ rights be terminated and

that May and James are adopted by their current caregivers. He explained that he

looked at the Holley factors to determine the best interest of the Children and that

the Holley factors that favor termination in this case include the desires of the

Children, the current and future needs of the Children, the current and future

potential of danger for the Children, stability of the home, and plans of the parents

for the child’s future.

Johnson explained that he has met both caregivers and has no concerns.

Johnson testified that he met Kenneth Wilson, and he has no concerns about him

either.

Johnson testified that he met with Mother in late fall about her plans if James

and May are returned home, and Mother did not have a distinct plan but referenced

different programs that were available. Johnson did not agree that Mother’s situation

had changed drastically. Johnson agreed that Mother had a home, and the caseworker

assessed the home and told him it was safe and clean. He indicated that he was told

that Mother started a full-time job a few weeks ago, but he had not talked with

Mother about her future plans and how she would care for the Children if they were

returned to her.

Johnson testified that he spoke with Father about his future plans on how he

would care for the Children, and he did not provide any specific information. He

indicated that he last spoke with Father via text approximately one month ago.

Johnson indicated that he has been on this case since the very beginning and

that he had been seeing the Children monthly. He stated that he has seen changes

since they first came into the Department’s care and that those changes weighed in

on his decision and recommendation. Johnson testified that he also observed visits

between the parents and the Children and had visited the home of the caregivers.

Johnson also reviewed school and medical records and had spoken with May and

James. Johnson testified that all those factors weighed into his decision and

recommendation.

Johnson stated that he learned Father leased a new home and he attempted to

see the home but was unsuccessful.

Christina Nordstrom, CASA advocate, testified that she agreed with

Johnson’s recommendation for similar reasons. Nordstrom stated that she had

observed May in the Tinlin’s home, and she had no concerns of Tinlin or his wife

caring for May. Nordstrom testified that she had no concerns about Hailey’s wife

and James either.

Nordstrom indicated that she last communicated with Mother in December.

Nordstrom last communicated with Father in December also.

Nordstrom testified that she believed she had built a sufficient relationship

with May to understand her desires. Nordstrom agreed that those desires played a

factor in her decision and recommendation. Nordstrom recommended to the jury that

parental rights to May be terminated and that May live with and be adopted by her

caregivers. Nordstrom testified that it is in the best interest that parental rights to

James be terminated and that he be adopted by his caregivers. Nordstrom further

stated that separation of James and May is in their best interest, and through her

involvement she is aware that the caregivers have arranged for visits roughly every

two to three weeks.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury answered “yes” to the following questions:

Question No. 1

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] has

knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in the

conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional wellbeing of the child?

Answer as to [May]: Yes

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Queston No. 2

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] has

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?

Answer as to [May]: Yes

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 3

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] has used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and (1) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or (2) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program continued to abuse a control substance?

Answer as to [May]: Yes

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 4

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between [Mother] and the child is in the best interest of the child?

Answer as to [May]: Yes

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 5

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the Department

made reasonable efforts to return the children to [Mother] and despite those efforts, a continuing danger remains in [Mother’s] homes?

Answer as to [May]: Yes

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 6

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has

knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in the

conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional wellbeing of the child?

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 7

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has 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?

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 8

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and (1) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or (2) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program continued to abuse a control substance?

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 9

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between [Father] and the child is in the best interest of the child?

Answer as to [James]: Yes

Question No. 10

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the Department

made reasonable efforts to return the children to [Father] and despite those efforts, a continuing danger remains in [Father’s] homes?

Answer as to [James]: Yes

…

Question No. 11

Who should be appointed managing conservator of [May]?

a. [Grandfather]

b. The Department []

Answer: B

Question No. 12

Who should be appointed managing conservator of [James]:

a. [Grandfather]

b. The Department []

Answer: B

This appeal followed.

Mother’s Continuance Challenge

In her first issue, Mother argues that the trial court committed reversible error

in denying her Motion to Retain on the Docket and Set New Dismissal Date.

According to Mother, extraordinary circumstances warranted additional time to

complete her recommended services and maintain stability. Mother argues that she

was employed, sober, and had obtained suitable housing ready for the Children’s

return but ran out of time to demonstrate her continued progress and stability.

Additionally, Mother argued May was re-enrolled in therapy, and Mother needed

additional time to attend therapeutic visits with May at the appropriate time.

“We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an extension of the

dismissal date under the abuse of discretion standard.” In re L.W.R.L., No. 09-24-00256-CV, 2025 WL 242937, at *12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 16, 2025, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (citations omitted); In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied) (en banc op. on reh’g). A trial court abuses its

discretion when it acts unreasonably or arbitrarily, or without reference to any

guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238,

241-42 (Tex. 1985). “We may not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s

judgment unless the trial court’s action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds

of reasonable discretion.” See Zagorski v. Zagorski, 116 S.W.3d 309, 313-14 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (citing Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.,

84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002)) (discussing abuse of discretion in the context of

marital property division).

Mother argues that she needed time to demonstrate her progress and stability

and to attend therapy, at an appropriate time, with May to address their issues.

However, it is insufficient to simply assert that a parent needs more time to complete

a family service plan when the parent has had sufficient opportunity to perform the

service plan but failed to do so. In re J.D.L.R., No. 04-11-00774-CV, 2012 WL

1364988, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 18, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Mother

had almost a year to complete her service plan. The Department developed a family

service plan for Mother in June 2024, and final trial commenced in May 2025. The

record shows that although Mother completed portions of her family service plan,

she failed to complete all the requirements of her plan, including maintaining

consistent employment, providing stable housing, and completing individual mental

health therapy. That said, the record shows that Mother’s failure to complete her

family service plan was not submitted to the jury, nor was it a finding at trial used to

support the termination order.

We cannot say the trial court erred in denying Mother’s Motion to Retain on

the Docket and Set New Dismissal Date nor that Mother was harmed by its denial

where the purported need for an extension was to complete a service plan when her

failure to do so was not submitted to the jury. Mother failed to demonstrate sufficient

cause for the trial court to grant her motion. We overrule Mother’s first issue.

Extension and Severance Challenge

Next, Mother challenges the trial court’s granting of May’s Alleged Father’s

Motion for General Extension and to Set New Dismissal Date and the Department’s

oral request to sever its pleadings as to May’s Alleged Father. Mother argues that

when seeking to terminate the rights of both parents in a suit involving the same

child, the proper procedure is to try the cases together. She contends that severance

is appropriate if the controversy involves two or separate and distinct causes of

action. Mother asserts that her and the Alleged Father’s claims are interwoven,

involve the same facts and issues, and the evidence supporting termination of her

parental rights is the same as the Alleged Father. According to Mother, any extension

or severance should have been granted as to both.

Rule 41 provides that “[a]ny claim against a party may be severed and

proceeded with separately.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 41. This rule grants the trial court broad

discretion in the matter of severance and consolidation of causes. Guar. Fed. Sav.

Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. 1990) (citation

omitted); In re E.A.G., 373 S.W.3d 129, 148 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet.

denied). The trial court’s decision to grant a severance will not be reversed unless it

has abused its discretion. See Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d at 658; In re

E.A.G., 373 S.W.3d at 148. A claim is properly severable if (1) the controversy

involves more than one cause of action, (2) the severed claim is one that would be

the proper subject of a lawsuit if dependently asserted, and (3) the severed claim is

not so interwoven with the remaining action that they involve the same facts and

issues. See Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d at 658; In re E.A.G., 373 S.W.3d

at 148.

Again, this case began in May 2024 and that same month, the trial court set

the case for trial for April 16, 2025. At the time, May was nine years old. The record

indicates that in December 2024, the Department filed its First Amended Petition for

Protection of a Child, for Conservatorship, and for Termination in Suit Affecting the

Parent-Child Relationship and named Alleged Father as the alleged father of May.

Soon after, the trial court received a letter from the Alleged Father that indicated he

was incarcerated for a five-year sentence for evading arrest and had a discharge date

of March 2027. Alleged Father requested a DNA test to determine May’s paternity.

In January and February 2025, Orders for Genetic Testing were entered. In March

2025, DNA results were filed that indicated that Alleged Father’s probability of

paternity was 99.9%. That same month, Mother filed her Demand for Jury Trial, and

the trial court reset the trial date to May 5, 2025, due to Mother’s request.

On May 2, 2025, Alleged Father filed his Motion for General Extension and

to Set New Dismissal Date. In the Motion, Alleged Father stated that he was not

included in the case until the Department filed its Amended Petition on December

6, 2024, a family service plan was not developed until February 6, 2025, and that it

was not confirmed that he was May’s father until March 20, 2025, when DNA test

results were received by the Department and filed with the Court. Alleged Father

requested that the Court retain the suit for a period not to exceed 180 days past the

dismissal date.

During pretrial proceedings, the Department orally requested that the Court

sever Alleged Father’s termination suit. The trial judge found that extraordinary

circumstances existed and granted the Department’s request to sever termination of

Alleged Father’s parental rights. The trial court set a new dismissal date based on

the delay in locating and serving Alleged Father and the fact that the DNA testing

results were not revealed until March 2025. The trial judge set Alleged Father’s new

dismissal deadline on November 15, 2025, with permanency hearings on June 12,

2025, and October 2, 2025. Final trial for Alleged Father was set for October 29,

2025. The trial court also noted that there “are entirely different facts and legal issues

regarding [Alleged Father], especially in light of the fact that he has not even been

adjudicated.” Considering Alleged Father’s delay in being served and establishing

paternity, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in severing the

termination of Alleged Father’s parental rights to May and in granting Alleged

Father’s Motion for General Extension and to Set New Dismissal Date. See

Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d at 658; In re E.A.G., 373 S.W.3d at 148.

Additionally, Mother has failed to demonstrate harm that resulted from Alleged

Father’s severance and extension. Mother’s second issue is overruled.

Best Interest Challenge

We review cases involving termination of parental rights under a clear and

convincing standard of proof, which 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.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 101.007,

161.001(b); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re J.F.C., 96

S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)) (other citations omitted). To terminate a party’s

parental rights, the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that

one of the statutory grounds support termination, and (2) that termination is in the

best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2). Here,

Mother and Father only challenge the trial court’s finding that termination was in

the best interest of May and James.

In a factual sufficiency review, the inquiry is whether the evidence, viewed in

a neutral light, “is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or

conviction about the truth of the …allegations.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 7, 25 (Tex.

2002); In re J.L.B., 349 S.W.3d 836, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.). If,

in weighing disputed evidence, the factfinder could have reasonably resolved the

conflicts to form a firm conviction that the allegations constituting the grounds for

termination were true, then the evidence is factually sufficient, and the termination

findings must be upheld. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

“In a legal sufficiency review, a court should look at all the evidence in the

light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact

could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true.” Id. In a legal

sufficiency review, we give deference to the factfinder’s conclusions and assume the

factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder

should. See id.

“There is a strong presumption that preservation of the conservatorship of the

parents is the paramount means to serve a child’s best interest; however, clear and

convincing evidence to the contrary may overcome the presumption.” In re K.S., 420

S.W.3d 852, 855 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.) (citing In re R.R., 209

S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)) (other citation omitted); see also Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 153.131(b). In deciding whether termination is in the best interest

of the child, the trial court may consider this nonexclusive list of factors:

(A) the desires of the child; (B) the emotional and physical needs of the

child now and in the future; (C) the emotional and physical danger to

the child now and in the future; (D) the parental abilities of the

individuals seeking custody; (E) the programs available to assist these

individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (F) the plans for

the child by these individuals or by the agency seeking custody; (G) the

stability of the home or proposed placement; (H) the acts or omissions

of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent-child

relationship is not a proper one; and (I) any excuse for the acts or

omissions of the parent.

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted); K.S., 420

S.W.3d at 855 (citation omitted). It is unnecessary to prove all these factors as a

condition precedent to parental-rights terminations. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.

At trial, the jury heard evidence that Mother (1) continued to use drugs

throughout the case, (2) continued to drink alcohol throughout the case, (3) failed to

complete her Family Plan of Service, including individual mental health therapy, (4)

refused to submit to a requested drug test, (5) left May and James unsupervised with

access to a firearm, (6) failed to provide adequate medical care for May and James,

(7) failed to maintain stable employment, and (8) that May and James were in a long71

term placement with a relative and a close family friend who were meeting their

needs and providing a consistent and drug-free home.

The jury heard evidence that Father (1) continued to use drugs throughout the

case, (2) failed to complete his Family Plan of Service by receiving and completing

the recommended therapy and treatment, (3) was arrested during the case for assault,

(4) failed to maintain employment, and (5) that James was in a long-term placement

with a close family friend who was meeting his needs and providing a consistent and

drug-free home. The jury considered Callaway’s testimony that it is in the Children’s

best interest that Mother’s and Father’s parental rights be terminated because of their

continued drug use and failure to maintain stable employment and housing and

failure to successfully complete the recommended treatment and services including

substance abuse treatment, individual therapy, and individual mental health therapy.

While the jury heard testimony that Mother and Father were living in a mobile home,

they had only begun living in the mobile home a few months prior. The jury heard

that Father was only able to lease the mobile home after receiving a lump sum of

backpay in social security disability and was now receiving monthly payments. The

jury heard testimony that Mother was working but that she had only started the job

approximately three weeks earlier and this was after several short-term jobs. The

jury further heard testimony regarding their continued drug use and of Father’s arrest

for assault during the case. The jury also heard Callaway and Nordstrom testify that

the children were happy and should remain in their current placement.

As the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given to

their testimony, the jury could reasonably conclude that termination of Mother’s and

Father’s parental right is in the best interests of May and James. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(2), 263.307(a); see also In the Int. of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266;

Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72.

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing

evidence, that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the best

interest of May and James. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2). We overrule

Mother’s third issue and Father’s sole issue.

Appointing of the Department as Permanent Managing Conservator

In her fourth issue, Mother argues that it was error to appoint the Department

as permanent managing conservator of the Children because the Department did not

offer evidence of any specific actions or omissions of Mother that demonstrate an

award of custody to her would result in physical or emotional harm to the Children.

Mother argues that no evidence was presented, and the jury did not make a specific

finding to justify the Department’s appointment.

Conservatorship determinations are subject to review for abuse of discretion.

In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007). We will reverse the trial court’s

appointment of a managing conservator only if we determine it was arbitrary or

unreasonable. See id.; In re E.G.P., No. 09-22-00330-CV, 2023 WL 4013306, at *11

(Tex. App.—Beaumont June 15, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The Family Code

creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent will be named the child’s managing

conservator unless that court finds that such appointment would not be in the best

interest of the child “because the appointment would impair the child’s physical

health or emotional development[.]” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.131(a). The finding

was made by the jury in this case when it determined that Mother knowingly placed

or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which

endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the Children, and that Mother

engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the Children with persons who engaged in

conduct with endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the Children.

“When the parents’ rights have been terminated, Family Code section

161.207(a) governs the appointment of a managing conservator.” In re E.G.P., 2023

WL 4013306, at *11 (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.207(a)) (other citation

omitted). Section 161.207(a) provides, “If the court terminates the parent-child

relationships with respect to both parents or to the only living parent, the court shall

appoint a suitable, competent adult, the Department of Family and Protective

Services, or a licensed child-placing agency as managing conservator of the child.”

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.207(a). Here, Mother’s parental rights to James and

May were terminated, as such, we cannot conclude, as to Mother, that the trial court

abused its discretion by appointing the Department as the Children’s managing

conservator. See In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d at 616; In re E.G.P., 2023 WL 4013306,

at *11.

We overrule Mother’s fourth issue.

Conclusion

Having considered and overruled all of Mother’s and Father’s issues on

appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decree of termination.

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on October 21, 2025

Opinion Delivered December 11, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

In the Interest of M.C. and J.R. v. the State of Texas

Summary · law.co

Key issues

Procedural posture

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain