the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins.
trial court signed an order terminating the parental rights
of B.W., the father of eight-year-old K.C., after a bench
trial. The trial court found that B.W. had
violated Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), (O),
and (Q) and that termination was in the child's best
interest. In his sole issue, B.W. contends that the evidence
is legally and factually insufficient to establish that
terminating his parental rights was in the child's best
interest. We will affirm.
proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship brought
under section 161.001, the Department must establish by clear
and convincing evidence two elements: (1) one or more acts or
omissions enumerated under subsection (b)(1) of section
161.001, termed a predicate violation; and (2) that
termination is in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2016);
Swate v. Swate, 72 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. App.-Waco
2002, pet. denied). The factfinder must find that both
elements are established by clear and convincing evidence,
and proof of one element does not relieve the petitioner of
the burden of proving the other. Holley v. Adams,
544 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex. 1976); Swate, 72 S.W.3d at
766. "Clear and convincing evidence" is defined as
"that measure or degree of proof which 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." In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847
legal and factual sufficiency reviews in termination cases
must take into consideration whether the evidence is such
that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or
conviction about the truth of the matter on which the
petitioner bears the burden of proof. In re J.F.C.,
96 S.W.3d 256, 264-68 (Tex. 2002) (discussing legal
sufficiency review); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25
(Tex. 2002) (discussing factual sufficiency review).
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.
To give appropriate deference to the factfinder's
conclusions and the role of a court conducting a legal
sufficiency review, looking at the evidence in the light most
favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court must
assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor
of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so. A
corollary to this requirement is that a court should
disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could
have disbelieved or found to have been incredible.
J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.
factual sufficiency review, a court of appeals must give due
consideration to evidence that the factfinder could
reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.
[T]he inquiry must be "whether the evidence is such that
a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or
conviction about the truth of the State's
allegations." A court of appeals should consider whether
disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could
not have resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its
finding. If, in light of the entire record, the disputed
evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited
in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder
could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction,
then the evidence is factually insufficient.
Id. (footnotes and citations omitted); see
C.H., 89 S.W.2d at 25.
following evidence was presented at trial. B.W. was charged
by indictment of the second-degree-felony offense of burglary
of a habitation. The offense occurred on May 21, 2013. The
indictment further charged B.W. as a habitual offender. The
jury found B.W. guilty and assessed his punishment at life
imprisonment. B.W.'s sentence was imposed on May 1, 2014.
The trial court admitted into evidence a certified copy of
the judgment of conviction. The trial court also admitted
into evidence a certified copy of this Court's memorandum
opinion, issued on October 29, 2015, affirming the judgment
of Family and Protective Services conservatorship worker
Camie Staas testified that in November 2014, the Department
received a referral, alleging that the children were being
neglectfully supervised by their mother. The referral alleged
that F.C. was arrested for criminal trespassing. She had
taken the children to a vacant home with no electricity and
was in the bathroom smoking marijuana with another person.
One of the twins was found crying nonstop, he had a cough,
and his diaper appeared that it needed to be changed.
stated that she spoke with F.C. in December 2014. According
to Staas, F.C. stated that
she was on probation for a falsified report to a police
officer and that she was there cleaning the residence and
that the landlord shut the electricity off on her, telling
her she had to leave within 15 minutes and that she did know
that the gentleman . . . ...