Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Appeal from the 235th District Court Cooke County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV15-00769
Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION
9, 2019, this court issued its opinion and rendered judgment
in this cause affirming the termination of Appellant
C.W.'s (Father's) parental rights to Blake after holding
that the evidence was sufficient to support two unchallenged
section 161.001(b)(1) grounds-(F) and (Q). In re
B.W., No. 02-19-00009-CV, 2019 WL 2041808, at *8-9 (Tex.
App.-Fort Worth May 9, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). The
following week, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in
In re N.G., in which it held that due process and
due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate
court must address and detail its analysis for an appeal of
termination of parental rights when a parent has presented an
issue under family code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) even
when there is sufficient evidence to support another
enumerated ground for termination. See No. 18-0508,
2019 WL 2147263, at *4 (Tex. May 17, 2019). We therefore
supplement our May 9, 2019 opinion with the following
analysis of the portion of Father's second issue
challenging the section 161.001(b)(1)(E) finding.
Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E) provides that the court
may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent
has "engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child
with persons who engaged in conduct [that] endangers the
physical or emotional well-being of the child." Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E). To
"endanger" means to expose a child to loss or
injury or to jeopardize a child's emotional or physical
health. See In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.
1996). Under subsection (E), the evidence must show that the
endangerment was the result of the parent's conduct,
including acts, omissions, or failure to act. In re
J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003,
no pet.). Termination must be based on more than a single act
or omission, and there must be a voluntary, deliberate, and
conscious course of conduct by the parent. Id. While
endangerment often involves physical endangerment, the
statute does not require that conduct be directed at a child
or that the child actually suffers injury; rather, the
specific danger to the child's well-being may be inferred
from the parent's misconduct alone. Tex. Dep't of
Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987). A
parent's conduct that subjects a child to a life of
uncertainty and instability endangers the child's
physical and emotional well-being. In re A.B., 412
S.W.3d 588, 599 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2013) (en banc op. on
reh'g), aff'd, 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014).
"Domestic violence, want of self[-]control, and
propensity for violence may be considered as evidence of
endangerment." In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841,
845 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Evidence
of criminal conduct, convictions, or imprisonment is relevant
to a review of whether a parent engaged in a course of
conduct that endangered the well-being of the child. A.S.
v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 394
S.W.3d 703, 712-13 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.).
Finally, we may consider conduct that occurred outside the
child's presence, including conduct before the
child's birth. Walker v. Tex. Dep't of Family
& Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).
May 9, 2019 opinion, we set forth a detailed factual
background. Here, we recap only the facts that are relevant
to an analysis of the endangering-conduct finding:
• Mother testified that when she was pregnant with
Blake, Father yelled at her, pushed her up against a wall,
and then held her down in the front yard. B.W., 2019
WL 2041808, at *1.
• Mother said that Father had been violent towards her
while Blake was present by verbally abusing her when Blake
was only a few months old to a year old. Id.
• The record demonstrates that in 2015, Father was
charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was
placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision.
Id. Mother testified that Father's criminal
charge was a result of his assaulting his then-girlfriend.
• Mother testified that Father's drug usage created
a situation that had endangered Blake's physical and
emotional well-being. Id. Mother explained that
Father had anger issues and was very violent when he was on
drugs. Id. Mother testified that she had seen Father
hit Paternal Grandmother on the back with a broomstick and
that he had been verbally abusive to Paternal Grandmother and
Paternal Grandfather. Id. at *1 n.5.
• Mother testified that her concerns about Father's
drug use were confirmed when his community supervision was
revoked due to failed drug tests and he was adjudicated
guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Id. at *2. The judgment reflects that Father was
placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision in
2015; that the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging
that Father had violated multiple conditions of his community
supervision; that he pleaded true to the alleged violations;
and that the trial court found the allegations to be true,
adjudicated Father guilty of aggravated assault, and
sentenced him to ten years' confinement. Id. The
record reflects that Father's parole eligibility date is
January 13, 2023. Id.
• Paternal Grandmother said that Father began using
drugs at the end of high school and had used drugs off and on
for eight years. Id. at *3. Paternal Grandmother
admitted that when Father was doing drugs, he would push her,
yell at her, and scream at her and Paternal Grandfather.
• Paternal Grandmother admitted that someone who had
abused drugs and had committed aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon was not a good, stable parent. Id. at
*4. Paternal Grandmother could not guarantee that Father