In the Interest of I.S. v. the State of Texas

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               ________________

                               NO. 09-25-00439-CV
                               ________________

                           IN THE INTEREST OF I.S.
________________________________________________________________________

                  On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 24-10-16977
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This appeal arises from a judgment terminating Mother’s and Father’s

(collectively “the Parents”) parent-child relationship with their daughter, Ivy,

following a jury’s affirmative findings on predicate grounds D, E, and N, and best

interest. 1 The jury 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 Ivy’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (2). The trial court signed an Order of Termination of


      1
       To protect the child’s identity, we use a pseudonym to refer to the child and
the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
                                          1
the Parents’ rights based on the jury’s findings. Both Mother and Father challenge

the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the predicate grounds

and best interest finding. Mother also challenges the appointment of the Department

of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) as Ivy’s managing conservator

and the trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial.

       As more fully discussed below, we hold that Father failed to preserve his

sufficiency challenges, and we affirm the trial court’s Order of Termination as to

Father and Mother. We also overrule Mother’s challenges to the appointment of the

Department as Ivy’s managing conservator and the trial court’s denial of the motion

for mistrial.

                                     Background

       On October 31, 2024, the Department filed a petition to terminate Mother’s

and Father’s parental rights to Ivy. The Department supported its petition with the

affidavit of its investigator, Cherry Haynes (“Haynes”). Haynes’s affidavit set out

the information leading to Ivy’s removal.

       According to Haynes’s affidavit, on October 29, 2024, the Department

received a report of physical abuse to one-month-old Ivy, after she was brought to

the hospital with a broken femur and other concerning marks on her body. Haynes

states that Mother has “untreated mental health issues[,]” and Father “is autistic.”

According to Haynes, she met with Mother at the hospital and Mother stated that she

                                           2
had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression. Mother reported

that she was not currently medicated and had not been medicated since becoming

pregnant with Ivy. According to Haynes, Mother told her while she was in another

room she heard Ivy cry in a manner different than normal. Mother stated that she

went into the bedroom where Ivy and Father were and noticed that Ivy’s leg looked

different. Mother indicated that she told Father that they were going to the hospital

and that Father did not respond. Mother advised that at the hospital, Father told her

that he was changing Ivy when she slipped away from him, and he grabbed her leg

to prevent her from hitting the floor. Mother stated that she lived with Father’s

parents and that Father’s dad has mental health issues.

      The report reflected that Department Special Investigator Catherine Giannaris

met with Father who said that he has autism and suffers from both short- and long-

term memory loss. Father stated that Mother went to the kitchen to make Ivy’s bottle

and that he removed Ivy from her car seat and was holding her in his left arm. Father

stated that while grabbing a towel with his right hand, Ivy became fussy and squirmy

and slipped out of his arm. Father stated that he grabbed Ivy by her leg with his right

hand and thought he heard and felt something snap. Father confirmed that when

Mother returned to the room, she noticed that Ivy had a floppy leg.

      The report stated that Haynes went to the hospital to see Ivy and saw visible

disfigurement of Ivy’s leg and scratches on her face. Haynes was informed that Ivy

                                          3
was being transported to Memorial Hermann Medical Center for further evaluation

of additional injuries.

      The report explained that the next day, October 30, 2024, a special medical

team met with the child abuse team at Memorial Hermann Medical Center. Dr.

Sheela Lahoti, the primary physician who examined Ivy, advised that Ivy had the

following injuries: left femur fracture; left ear bruise; and hepatic laceration. Dr.

Lahoti advised that Ivy’s injuries were concerning for physical abuse, and the

Parents’ explanations were inconsistent with Ivy’s injuries.

      The report confirmed that the Department met with the family to “gain a

relevant explanation” regarding how Ivy was injured, and they could not provide

one. Haynes confirmed that Ivy was seriously injured, her injuries were consistent

with physical abuse, and leaving Ivy in the care of the Parents could cause her more

serious harm. At the time, there were no family or fictive kin members who could

care for Ivy.

      The report stated that the Department asked to be named Ivy’s Temporary

Managing Conservator to ensure her health and safety. Haynes pointed out that Ivy

sustained bruising to her ear, two leg fractures, and a liver laceration and that the

Parents could not provide consistent or reasonable explanations for the injuries.

Haynes stated that medical staff concluded Ivy’s injuries, given her vulnerable age,

were consistent with abuse.

                                         4
Trial Evidence

      On October 13, 2025, a jury trial on the termination of Mother’s and Father’s

parental rights began.

      Haynes testified that after eighteen years as an investigator, she retired from

the Department in December 2024. She explained that as an investigator, she would

“staff[] the cases with [a] supervisor, make contact with the family, child, ask[]

questions, and staff what the findings are with the supervisor.” She recalled that she

was assigned Ivy’s case in October 2024, after allegations of neglectful supervision

and physical abuse. Haynes testified that as an investigator, she would first make

contact with the family, speak with the reporter, make contact with the child, and

speak with the supervisor about the information obtained pertaining to the alleged

abuse or neglect then determine the next steps.

      Haynes recalled arriving at Memorial Hermann Hospital in The Woodlands

around 3 a.m. with CPS Special Investigator, Katherine Giannaris. Haynes explained

that a special investigator is involved when there are serious injuries to a child.

Haynes testified that she first met with hospital staff, then interviewed Mother. She

asked Mother about her job, home environment, relationship with Ivy, daily

schedules, and the events of the day. Mother was eighteen or nineteen years old and

shared that the Department was involved in her childhood. Mother told Haynes that

she lived with Ivy, Father, and Father’s parents in his parents’ home and that she

                                          5
worked for DoorDash. Haynes testified that Mother said she was diagnosed with

bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, and although prescribed medicine, she had

not been on any medicine since her pregnancy.

      Haynes testified that regarding Ivy’s injuries, Mother stated that she was in

either the bathroom or kitchen cutting avocadoes when she heard Ivy scream. Mother

stated that she went into the room and noticed Ivy’s leg was “dangling.” Haynes did

not discuss any of Ivy’s other injuries with Mother that night. According to Haynes,

Mother stated that she was not in the room when Ivy was injured, and Father was

with Ivy. Haynes testified that Mother told her that once they arrived at the hospital,

Father said that he almost dropped Ivy and tried to grab her to prevent Ivy from

hitting the floor. After speaking with Mother for half an hour to an hour, Haynes

then discussed the incident with her supervisor, Mary Nicholas, and Giannaris. At

that point, Giannaris took over the investigation. Haynes did not interview Father,

but officers and Giannaris did.

      Haynes testified that when she saw Ivy, she noted scratches on Ivy’s face, a

bruise in her ear, and her leg was on a board and taped down. At the end of the

investigation, Ivy was removed and placed in foster care. Haynes stated that there

was reason to believe neglectful supervision for Mother, and physical abuse and

neglectful supervision for Father.




                                          6
      Haynes confirmed that she visited the home where Mother, Father, and Ivy

lived with Father’s parents, in the Lake Conroe area. Haynes stated that the bedroom

was neat but tight with the bed and bassinet where Ivy slept. She stated that the living

room had totes stacked from the floor to the ceiling.

      Giannaris also testified at trial. She has been a special investigator with the

Department for seventeen years. She clarified that a special investigator is a former

law enforcement officer that primarily deals with and is assigned to cases of high

profile, high media, and serious injury. October 29, 2024, she was assigned to Ivy’s

case with allegations of physical abuse of a one-month-old. Giannaris received a call

about the case around 1 a.m., and she coordinated to meet with the investigator at

the hospital. She arrived at Memorial Hermann The Woodlands around 1:30 a.m.

and was escorted to Ivy’s room. She noted that medical staff were inside the room,

but Mother and Father were outside the door. Giannaris testified that she introduced

herself to Mother and Father and asked to speak with Father when Mother

immediately spoke up and stated that Father is autistic. She then asked to speak with

Father again, and once he agreed, she and Father went into a private family room

where she read him the notification of rights and asked if he understood. Father

stated that he understood but wanted to talk to someone before he spoke with

Giannaris. About thirty minutes later, Father returned for his interview with

Giannaris.

                                           7
      Giannaris testified that she began by asking Father basic questions like his

name, birthdate, social history, criminal history and history with the Department.

Father indicated that he was involved with the Department as a child when his

mother was beaten by his stepfather. Father said that he had long-term and short-

term memory loss, and although he did not currently use drugs, he used Delta-8,

mushrooms, Xanax, and marijuana a year earlier. Giannaris stated that they

discussed Mother, and Father stated that Mother was diagnosed with bipolar-1 but

was not taking her medicine because she had gotten pregnant.

      According to Giannaris, Father said he was Ivy’s caretaker, but Mother

primarily watched Ivy during the day. Giannaris testified that Father claimed that he

was holding Ivy in his left arm, and “that she was fussy and squirmy[,]” and fell. He

stated that he grabbed her with his right hand and that is when he heard the snap.

Father told Giannaris that Mother was in the other room. Giannaris spoke with Father

for about forty to forty-five minutes but never went to the residence.

      Giannaris explained that she did not interview Mother because Haynes was

interviewing her, and at that point, Mother was not considered the perpetrator since

Father was with Ivy at the time of her injury. She testified that she spoke with

hospital staff briefly and the Conroe Police Department then later spoke with

supervisors about the disposition. Giannaris testified the conclusion was “reason to




                                          8
believe,” which meant the evidence showed abuse or neglect occurred. Her role in

this case ended once she left the hospital.

      Derrick Dunn testified that in October 2024 he was a detective with the

Conroe Police Department but has since left the police department. On October 29,

2024, Dunn was the on-call detective who investigates major crimes, so he was

called to investigate a report of an injury to a child.

      Dunn stated that he met Mother and Father on the day of the incident and met

Father first at Memorial Hermann Hospital in The Woodlands. Mother and Ivy were

transferred to Memorial Hermann in Houston, so Dunn testified that he later went

there to speak with Mother. After speaking with the Parents, Dunn continued his

investigation, then later he interviewed Mother and Father again at the police

department on November 4, 2024.

      Dunn testified that he wore a body camera while working as an on-call

detective, which recorded this investigation. A copy of Dunn’s body camera video

was admitted into evidence and shown to the jury.

      Dunn relayed that when he arrived at Memorial Hermann in The Woodlands,

he spoke with officers and then Father for about an hour. Dunn also spoke with

Mother’s father at the hospital before going to Memorial Hermann in Houston. He

then spoke with Mother to get her side of the story.




                                            9
      Dunn testified that Mother mentioned Ivy rolling, and this was odd to him

because generally at a month old, babies are unable to roll. Dunn explained that Ivy

was in the hospital bed in the video and he saw scabs on her face, “a lot of bruises,”

including to her ear and upper left shoulder area, and her leg injury. After talking

with Mother, Dunn spoke with the doctors and nurses to get their thoughts on how

Ivy was injured since Mother and Father claimed it was an accident.

      Dunn stated that he returned to the room to speak with Mother about Ivy’s

shoulder injury, and Mother explained that she took Ivy to the hospital a week prior,

and the IV was inserted into her shoulder. Dunn believed this was strange because

he never knew of a baby getting an IV in the upper shoulder area.

      Dunn explained that in the body camera video being played, he asked Mother

about injuries to Ivy’s nose, face and mouth area. Dunn testified that Mother claimed

Ivy scratched herself, but Dunn stated that Ivy had round scabs “all over her face”

that did not look like scratch marks. Dunn questioned Mother about the scab on Ivy’s

ear, and Mother explained that Ivy scratched herself there, too. Dunn stated that

when discussing Ivy’s fractured leg, Mother seemed to suggest that she preferred the

fractured leg to Ivy falling and hitting her head on the floor.

      Dunn testified that he then spoke with Father again, and the video of the

conversation was played to the jury. Dunn explained that he asked Father to reenact

how he was holding Ivy at the time he claimed she fell, and he grabbed her. This

                                          10
was demonstrated with a towel in his left hand that is representative of Ivy. Dunn

explained that it was hard for him to believe that Mother and Father went to the

hospital without Father explaining to Mother what happened, and Father’s

explanation did not satisfy his curiosity.

      Dunn stated that on November 4, 2024, he spoke with Mother and Father

again at the Conroe Police Department. He spoke with Mother first and asked her

about her mental health. Mother told Dunn that she was diagnosed with bipolar

disorder, anxiety, and PTSD. Dunn stated that Mother explained that she used to

take medication and recently resumed her anxiety medicine.

      Next, Dunn testified that he interviewed Father and asked him about Ivy’s

fractured leg. According to Father, he grabbed Ivy’s leg and squeezed it. Dunn stated

that Father maintained he did not remember much about the incident. Dunn also

questioned Father about his mental health, and Father responded that he had long-

term and short-term memory loss and autism. Father also mentioned that he was

trying to stick to the story, which concerned Dunn because he felt there was nothing

to stick to if you tell the truth. Dunn stated that Father had trouble remembering if

he dropped Ivy or if she hit something. When asked, Father responded that Ivy did

not hit anything but that he caught her to prevent her from hitting anything.

      The video recording of both Mother’s and Father’s interviews were played to

the jury during Dunn’s testimony.

                                             11
      After completing the interviews and gathering evidence, Dunn called Father

and told him that he would present everything to the prosecutors. Dunn explained

that once he presented his evidence to the prosecutors, that was the end of his

investigation, though he did not know the exact date he presented the evidence to

the prosecutors. Dunn stated that he completed a grand jury subpoena for Ivy’s

hospital records and that information was sent to an assistant district attorney. Dunn

did not receive the medical records and did not know if they were sent or received

by someone assigned to the case after him.

      Dunn testified that he also spoke with the paternal grandfather, the maternal

grandfather’s girlfriend, medical staff, and the Department’s investigators. Dunn last

worked on this case in March 2025. Although Dunn does not know how the injuries

occurred, he understood that the medical professionals suggested that the injuries

“appeared to be more than just an accident.” Dunn explained that in these

investigations, it is normal to rely on doctors’ opinions regarding the injury. During

his investigation, Mother nor Father were arrested or charged and he does not know

the status of any criminal charges.

      Father testified that he was twenty-six years old during trial, and he and

Mother are engaged. Father said that he works eleven to sixteen hours a week at

Domino’s Pizza and gets paid every two weeks. He makes $700–800 monthly.

Before Domino’s Pizza, Father worked for The Pool Man in Tomball, Texas, for

                                         12
close to eight months but they replaced him when he had no transportation for

approximately four weeks. He works at Domino’s because it is within walking

distance of his mother’s house, but he is working on getting his car repaired and

getting it insured. Father completed some repairs on his car and plans to get

additional parts for the car when he gets paid next week. Father testified that he also

worked for Red Wave Pools for three months and for DoorDash.

      Father stated that he and Mother currently live in Cleveland, Texas with his

mother and his stepdad, and that he and Mother share a bedroom. He has lived there

since June, and his mother rents the home on a month-to-month basis. Father

explained that he contributes towards the rent by giving $200–400, helping with

groceries and walking the dog. Father testified that he and Mother contribute to the

household since they moved in four months ago by helping with groceries and

helping his mother’s friend. Father estimated that he spends approximately $270 a

month for groceries.

      Before living with his mother, Father and Mother lived in a trailer that cost

$700 monthly in Livingston, Texas. Mother’s father paid their first month’s rent.

Father said that they had two cats and one puppy while living in the trailer; however,

when they did not pay rent, the landlord put their pets outside. Father did not recall

what month they were evicted but stated that he would give the landlord $350 every




                                          13
two weeks towards the rent. He testified that they later returned to the trailer to

retrieve their belongings.

      Before living in the trailer, for about three months, Father and Mother lived

with Mother’s father, his girlfriend, and the girlfriend’s two children. Father

explained that they moved out because they found a place to live to prove they could

be stable and did not need to rely on people. He denied that Mother’s father asked

him to leave but stated that Mother’s father gave him $700 and told him to go check

out the trailer. He testified that Mother decided that the trailer was a good fit for

them and he felt it was within their budget.

       Before living with Mother’s father, they lived with his father, stepmother,

and a friend. They began living with his father after an altercation at Mother’s

grandparents’ house. His father purchased the home in 2008, and it is the home that

he grew up in. Father stated that he lived with his father from seventh grade through

New Year’s 2023.

      Father testified that before this case, he did not take any medications to treat

his mental health, but during this case, the Burke Center prescribed him medication

to treat bipolar disorder. According to Father, he was prescribed the medicine “to

see how it went,” and he took it for four or five months. He is not taking the medicine

anymore because he ran out and was unsure if it helped him. Father acknowledged

that he had a psychological examination, and they recommended he see a counselor.

                                          14
Father claimed that he talked to a therapist this year because it was in the plan, but

he could not recall when he began seeing the therapist. He found the counseling

sessions beneficial in some ways but eventually stopped going to the counselor

because their car was broken. He saw the same counselor for family and individual

counseling.

      Father denied having problems controlling his anger and stated that he was

always alone and did not have many friends. Father admitted that he lost his temper

with Mother but stated that it was only verbal, and he went outside to cool off. Father

denied ever breaking things out of anger but admitted in 2024, that he broke the radio

screen in his car after a heated discussion with his stepmother. He also denied ever

driving recklessly out of anger.

      Father stated that he had supervised visits with Ivy at the Department’s office

every Tuesday that were two or three hours. He admitted that he missed visits for

one month and several other visits due to transportation issues. He last saw Ivy two

months ago.

      Father testified that he had hygiene issues during this case because of his

depression and missing Ivy. He admitted that he told his therapist that his pets were

urinating on his clothes, and he had trouble getting the clothes washed because the

trailer did not have a washer or dryer. Father admitted that the trailer had a shower

and sink.

                                          15
      Father knew that Ivy had a leg fracture, lacerated liver and scratches on her

face; he knew the leg fracture and lacerated liver were serious injuries. He denied

seeing any bruising behind Ivy’s ear, and at one point, felt the doctors might have

made up those injuries.

      Father stated that on October 28, 2024, he got up around 5:30 a.m., got ready

for work, and went to work at The Pool Man in Tomball, Texas until 4 or 5 p.m. At

that point, he returned the work truck to the warehouse and got in his car heading

home. Father stated that he was not sleepy that night and that he was suffering with

depression-type issues after his brother was killed in an accident last April. He stated

that he was having trouble sleeping but was winding down while Mother took care

of Ivy.

      On the night of October 28, 2024, Father stated that he was holding Ivy in his

hand and arm, and “she was fussy.” According to Father, Ivy was kicking and rolling

around and he was “trying to make sure [she] had a well main [sic] diaper.” He stated

that Ivy kicked and rolled off his arm, and from “[p]ure instinct[,]” he grabbed one

leg with his left hand and squeezed before he grabbed the other leg and laid her on

the bed. He denied making a twisting motion when he grabbed Ivy’s leg. He testified

that Ivy could have hit the bassinet or bed frame “on the way up.”

      Father stated that Mother came into the room asking if he wanted her to take

over, and he examined Ivy on her head and body but did not see a bruise. He did not

                                          16
tell Mother what happened to Ivy until they were at the hospital. Father said that

Mother did not ask what happened to Ivy until they were at the hospital. He believed

the ride to the hospital took approximately twenty-five minutes. During this time,

Mother tended to Ivy in the backseat and made sure she was buckled in properly.

Father said that Mother noticed something was wrong with Ivy’s leg when she

picked her up and saw it was “floppy.” Father admitted that Ivy’s leg looked

different, and during the ride to the hospital, Mother did not ask what happened

because she was “freaking out” and crying. He stated that Mother was angry with

him “a little bit” after the hospital but explained she understood that he would rather

Ivy have a fractured leg than have a head injury from hitting the floor with blood

everywhere. He testified that Mother forgave him, and he told her they were in this

together and needed to make sure Ivy is taken care of. Father attributed Ivy’s face

abrasions to Ivy scratching herself, but he did not know how her ear was bruised or

how her liver was lacerated.

      Father stated that Mother is not working, and he is the only one bringing in

income for them. When asked how he would support his daughter, he responded that

he would eventually like to work for a pool company, because he has experience,

but he has not sought the job because he does not have a vehicle. Father testified that

he would have a working vehicle if Ivy had a doctor’s appointment or he would have




                                          17
family and friends on standby. He conceded that family and friends could not help

getting them to visits because most work and have other things to take care of.

      Father acknowledged that on September 24, 2025, when the caseworker

visited, he did not have a crib for Ivy at the home, but Father stated the crib is at the

maternal grandfather’s home. Father also stated that he could get Ivy a crib if she is

returned to his mother’s home, and he would babyproof his mother’s home after the

trial. He testified that Ivy is currently placed with her maternal great-grandmother.

      Father admitted that what happened on October 28, 2024, was “[s]hocking”

and claimed it was an accident. Father testified that he did not purposely injure Ivy

and would not injure her out of anger. He revealed that if upset, he would get

something to eat, play video games, watch TV, relax and hold Ivy. He stated that he

and Mother do not argue often but when they do, the arguments are normal.

      Father testified that he would love to have Ivy returned to him because he

misses her. He stated that he and Mother used a ride service through Medicaid for

transportation to therapy at the Department’s office, but it was later denied because

it was not a normal doctor’s office. He explained that he informed the Department

about his car issues and that an Uber would cost from $70–200 one way. Father did

not ask for closer visits at Ivy’s placement home but testified that he was told the

visits could only be at the Department’s office or CASA.




                                           18
      Photos of Mother, Father and Ivy were shown to the jury, and Father testified

that Ivy is always excited to see them. He stated that during their visits they would

listen to music, take photos, eat, and change her diaper. If Ivy is returned to him,

Father wants to have the family together and take care of her needs. Father stated

that he loves Ivy over Mother any day, that he would do anything to protect her, and

would never put her in danger. He denied putting Ivy in danger.

      Father explained that he did not encourage Mother to get a job to help with

the car repairs because she was unable to work due to having Postural Orthostatic

Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS). He stated that in the past Mother worked less than

one month at Blue Duck in Livingston, so the responsibility of the car repairs was

on him.

      Father stated that when he had supervised visits with Ivy, he once noticed a

diaper rash and a bruise another time when Ivy was younger than six months. He

said he informed the case worker about the bruise but did not recall her response.

      Father testified that he completed the parenting classes required by the

Department and completed the MET family program virtually. He stated that the

class was three hours every Tuesday for twelve weeks, and he learned nutritional

values for children.

      Father testified that Ivy was never in a car accident when he had her, and he

did not think Mother ever did anything to lacerate Ivy’s liver. Father never saw

                                         19
Mother stomp or hit Ivy, and he denied ever doing so. When asked if he ever

witnessed anything that could have caused the liver laceration, Father noted that the

room was small and cramped with furniture. He reasoned that Ivy could have hit the

furniture, but he did not recall a specific instance where Ivy hit something that could

have caused a liver laceration. He believed that Ivy’s injuries were accidental.

      Father stated that he has moved from his mother’s home to prevent future

accidents, and Ivy’s current room is safe though not babyproofed. Father said that

he and Ivy play with blocks, listen to music, and cuddle. He testified that he last fed

Ivy on their visit two months ago. He stated that he enrolled in a fatherhood program

and learned how to hold and feed the baby.

      Father shared that Mother is his support network and has given him more

information on parenting than anyone. He stated that he can rely on his biological

mother, stepmother, stepsister, and three people from church to help out. He testified

that while he is ready to have Ivy back, he and Mother are not prepared or equipped

to have Ivy back “at the moment.”

      Dr. Dina Ahmad, child abuse fellow and physician in training, testified that

she is employed as part of the CARE Team at University of Texas Health Science

Center. She described her educational background and training for the jury. She

explained that a fellowship is extra training, or subspecialty, after the residency and

that her subspeciality is child abuse pediatrics. Through her fellowship, she is

                                          20
working through McGovern Medical School, and she sees patients at Children’s

Memorial Hermann Hospital. Dr. Ahmad testified that she has given several

presentations, including training to the Forensic Assessment Center Network

(“FACN”) on infant care, development, injuries and abuse. She explained that

FACN is a connection between the Department and the child abuse pediatricians,

but FACN is not controlled by the Department.

      Dr. Ahmad testified that the CARE Team, which is separate from FACN, is a

group of pediatricians with extra training in evaluating childhood maltreatment,

abuse or neglect and is affiliated with UT Health with privileges at Memorial

Hermann Hospital. The CARE Team is consulted when a child presents to the

emergency room and after evaluation, there is a concern about child abuse or neglect.

She explained that approximately sixty percent of the cases are either no concern for

abuse or equivocal determination.

      Dr. Ahmad stated that the CARE Team conducts a follow-up with the child at

the CARE Clinic to follow up on the injury findings, which includes a physical exam

with imaging and labs, if needed, and to follow up with the caregivers. If the child

has a broken bone, the CARE Team facilitates x-rays to check on the healing. The

CARE Team or the FACN Network does not look for child abuse and is primarily

focused on the child’s health. She explained that it is important to determine whether

there is potential for child abuse to assess the child’s safety after discharge.

                                           21
      Dr. Ahmad explained that the CARE Team completes an evaluation that

includes assessment and determination. She stated that there are four possible

determinations: no concerns for child maltreatment or injuries that are likely

accidental; nonspecific, meaning the injuries could be accidental but child abuse or

neglect cannot be ruled out; concern for child maltreatment; and substantial evidence

of child maltreatment, child abuse, or neglect. The third determination, concern for

child maltreatment, is given when there are injuries but no explanation for the

injuries. Therefore, it would be concerning.

      She explained that certain injuries are highly specific for inflicted injury or

are more common to happen accidentally. For example, it is common for a baby to

suffer a skull fracture and the caregiver to explain that the baby fell on the floor from

someone’s arms or the bed. Dr. Ahmad testified that this situation is common and

accidental and that other factures to the clavicle or collarbone are common to see

and categorized as accidental when a clear history is provided. She explained that

she gathers the history by first reviewing the medical records and how the baby is

presented after she receives a consultation request from the primary physician or

surgeon and the reasons for their concern. Dr. Ahmad confirmed that she reviews all

workups done before her involvement including hospital and emergency room

records and statements or history that the parents have provided. She then reviews

the social work evaluation if one was done and then interviews the parents or

                                           22
caregivers. She conducts a full physical exam, with any recommended additional

workup, blood work or x-rays, and then the CARE Team discusses their findings

with the primary team.

      Dr. Ahmad explained that when she speaks with the parents, she tries to

determine what happened, why the baby is at the hospital, and how the injuries

occurred. If the parents’ explanation is inconsistent with the injuries, this is

concerning for child abuse because the injuries are unexplained. She noted that the

next higher level is consistent with or substantial evidence for child maltreatment;

this involves cases with multiple injuries of patterned bruises, burns or fractures that

the only possible explanation is substantial evidence for abuse. Dr. Ahmad testified

that patterned bruises are loop-like marks caused by a belt and that pattern burns are

cigarette burns. She stated that if the child is verbal, they speak with the child and

include an outcry if they provide evidence of maltreatment.

      Dr. Ahmad was consulted to evaluate Ivy by the Pediatric Trauma Team when

she was presented to Children’s Memorial Hermann Emergency. Ivy’s medical

records from Memorial Hermann The Woodlands were admitted as evidence, and

Dr. Ahmad testified that the records stated that on October 29, 2024, Ivy was seen

for leg pain and thigh deformity. She admitted that it is typical for serious injury

cases to be transported to Downtown Memorial Hermann, which is where the UT

McGovern Medical School and the CARE Team is located. The report from

                                          23
Memorial Hermann The Woodlands for the left femur x-ray included findings of an

acute displaced midshaft, left femoral fracture with approximately 1.7 centimeters

overlap and no gross malalignment of the knee. Dr. Ahmad reviewed the x-rays for

the fracture and explained that the thigh bone is broken. She testified that the break

was a spiral fracture meaning it is rotational and occurs with a torsion or rotational

force such as twisting an extremity. She stated that Ivy suffered a displaced fracture,

which meant the bones are not aligned and on different planes.

      Dr. Ahmad testified that a child’s bone or an infant’s bone is harder to break

than an adult’s bone, because it has more cartilage content and is more flexible. She

explained that Ivy was treated with a Pavlik harness on both legs to keep the harness

in place. The harness also immobilized Ivy’s leg to allow for healing.

      Dr. Ahmad confirmed that a lacerated liver is diagnosed through a liver

function test that measures liver enzymes. She stated that Ivy had elevated liver

enzymes, and a CT scan of Ivy’s abdomen was done to check her internal organs

when the laceration was seen. She explained that the CARE Team spoke with the

radiologist about the finding.

      According to Dr. Ahmad, she spoke with Mother and then Father, and stated

that when she spoke with Mother, Father was asleep in the same room. Dr. Ahmad

stated that Mother told her she was in another room when she heard Ivy crying.

Mother reported that she went into the room and noticed the deformity in Ivy’s thigh

                                          24
and that Father stated that he was changing Ivy’s diaper on the bed when she rolled

over and fell.

      When Dr. Ahmad spoke with Father, he provided a different explanation and

stated that he was holding Ivy and he “lost a grab of her” and to prevent her from

hitting the floor, he grabbed Ivy’s thigh and “felt a pop.” Dr. Ahmad read the notes

made after speaking with Father that stated, “‘Dad explained that he forcefully

grabbed her left leg with both of his hands to prevent her from hitting the floor and

then he heard and felt it pop.’” Dr. Ahmad stated that the primary physician at the

emergency room, the social worker, and the orthopedic surgeon spoke with Mother

and Father to get the explanation, as well. Notes from the social worker reveal that

“‘[Father] reported that patient began to roll over and had rolled off the bed. [Father]

reports attempting to catch the patient and was able to catch patient by [] her leg in

midair.’” Dr. Ahmad stated that this was different than what Father told her but is

the same explanation from Mother. She pointed out that changing history is usually

considered a flag or a concern.

      Dr. Ahmad testified that the liver laceration is more concerning than the femur

fracture, because the mechanism for liver laceration is blunt trauma to the stomach

that “happens in a fall from a significant height, a car accident or a punch or a

stomp.” She stated that Ivy’s femur fracture, with the history of her falling and Father

trying to prevent her from hitting the ground, would be nonspecific since the history

                                          25
could explain the fracture, though abuse would not be ruled out. The absence of any

explanation about Ivy’s liver laceration is “highly concerning for inflicted trauma

and physical abuse.”

      As for the abrasions on Ivy’s face, Dr. Ahmad testified that when asked,

Mother responded that Ivy scratches herself, which they determined was

nonspecific. She explained that nonspecific means Ivy could have scratched herself,

but that inflicted trauma could not be ruled out. Dr. Ahmad noted that Ivy did not

have a frenulum, the small tissue that connects the lip to the gum. She stated that it

is possible for children to be born without a frenulum, and because there was no

acute trauma, this was not a concern.

      Next, Dr. Ahmad discussed bruising on Ivy’s upper arm, and she pointed out

that she never received an explanation for the bruising and denied that an IV would

have been placed there. Regarding the ear bruising, it is concerning because the ear

is soft and hard to bruise. Dr. Ahmad testified that bruising inside the ear or on top

of the earlobe is concerning for inflicted trauma and more concerning on a five-

week-old “nonmobile child.”

      Dr. Ahmad testified that when evaluating cases, they “look at the constellation

of symptoms and injuries.” She pointed out that the femur injury was uncommon,

and the lacerated liver was “extremely uncommon.” Dr. Ahmad stated that Ivy’s

case is “highly concerning for physical abuse,” and given all the facts, there is clear

                                          26
evidence of physical abuse or neglect. She testified that she is convinced there was

physical abuse given the constellation of injuries and lack of explanation.

      Dr. Ahmad acknowledged that a spiral fracture could occur if a parent tried to

catch a failing child. She pointed out that the liver is protected by the rib cage, and

Ivy did not have any damage to her rib cage. Dr. Ahmad admitted that it is possible

to cause a liver laceration if Ivy hit furniture, but it would require significant force,

which a fall could provide depending on the latitude.

      Dr. Ahmad stated that Ivy’s discharge instructions show that nurses spoke

with Mother and Father about preventing a fall. She testified that notes showed

nurses tried to teach Mother and Father about safety and fall prevention. As to the

parents, the notes also state, “Needs reinforcement. No evidence of learning.”

      According to Dr. Ahmad, the Department removed Ivy on the day of her

discharge, and she did not leave the hospital with the Parents.

      Next, Dr. Sheela Lahoti, professor of pediatrics and Vice Dean for Admission

and Student Affairs with the University of Texas Health Science at Houston, testified

that she has been a licensed physician since 1995 and specializes in pediatrics and is

board certified in child abuse pediatrics. Dr. Lahoti stated that she supervised Dr.

Ahmad on the CARE Team and agreed with Dr. Ahmad’s assessment.

      Dr. Lahoti saw Ivy in the hospital and agreed that her liver laceration was

highly concerning. She stated that for a liver laceration, a significant fall would have

                                           27
to occur or a direct blow to the abdomen. She testified that it would depend on the

height of the fall for Ivy’s liver laceration to be the result of hitting a corner of a

piece of furniture.

      Dr. Lahoti testified that she only saw Ivy once in the hospital and spent

between fifteen and twenty minutes in the area. She stated that reviewing the case

took longer. She recalled speaking to one of the parents but did not recall whether it

was Mother or Father. She did not recall either parent doing anything concerning in

the hospital.

      She stated that the CARE Team determined that Ivy did not hit the floor and

that Father grabbed her by the leg. The physicians involved in the determination

were Dr. Ahmad, the radiologist, and the CARE Team, though the final

determination came from Dr. Lahoti and Dr. Ahmad.

      Victor Love, psychotherapist, testified that he has a private practice and a

contract with the State of Texas through the Department where he receives referrals

for parents involved with the Department. Love stated that he is a licensed marriage

and family therapist, licensed chemical dependency counselor, and licensed sex

offender treatment provider. He has worked as a counselor for thirty-seven years.

      Love testified that he became familiar with Mother and Father when the

Department referred them for individual therapy and couples counseling. He stated

that he began treating Father on February 25, 2025, with visits scheduled every

                                          28
Tuesday, the day of his visits with Ivy for convenience, at the Department. Love

recalled that Father missed ten sessions total, including individual and family

sessions. He stated that Father often gave notice of his absence less than twenty-four

hours before the appointment. He last saw Father for individual counseling on June

12, 2025, and he neither showed up nor scheduled the next visit.

        Father’s first family session with Love was on March 25, 2025, and those

visits were on a recurring basis on Tuesdays. Mother and Father were absent for

some family sessions and failed to attend family counseling sessions in May or July

2025. Love last saw Mother and Father at a family session together on August 12,

2025.

        According to Love, he discussed Ivy’s injuries that brought her into the

Department’s care, and Father stated that he was alone with Ivy in the bedroom

trying to change her diaper. Love testified that Father said he was holding Ivy with

his left arm, and “she kicked off” and fell off his arm. Love relayed that another

time, Father pointed out that Ivy rolls a lot and “insinuated that she rolled off his

arm.” Love stated that Mother never discussed the incident that led to Ivy’s injuries.

He also testified the Parents had not taken accountability for the accident that caused

Ivy’s injuries.

        Love testified that Father said he did not believe the doctors about Ivy’s

injuries or that all the injuries occurred as reported. According to Love, Father said

                                          29
the doctors were “talking out of their butt.” Father also denied knowing how the liver

laceration occurred. Father claimed he did not see any bruises on Ivy, and he only

saw the abrasions on Ivy’s face, which he attributed to her scratching herself.

        Love recalled speaking with Mother and Father in family therapy during their

last session on August 12, 2025, about a time, during a visit, when Ivy fell back and

the caseworker, Ms. Horton, was upset with them because they did not try to catch

Ivy. Love explained that Mother claimed they could not have known that Ivy might

fall.

        Love testified that Mother and Father were engaged to be married, and Mother

is “very much in charge” in the relationship telling Father what, when, and how to

do things. He stated that Mother was constantly critical of Father and “always had

something negative to say” while Father was “going along to get along.” Love

testified that Mother relayed several events when Father could not control his anger.

She reported that he often threw things, like his phone and game controller, and he

drove in a scary manner playing chicken with another car and having several

accidents. Love recalled Father describing a time when he could not control his anger

when he had a line of customers at work and called for assistance, and he eventually

told the manager that he would use a baseball bat against him if he did not come

help.




                                         30
       Love stated that he discussed employment with Mother and Father, because

employment is important to establish the ability to provide for one’s own needs as

well as the children’s needs. He explained that employment creates opportunities for

a schedule, responsibility, social contact, stability and reliability. Love said that

Father worked as a pool technician when Love started seeing him and that Father

felt successful at that. Due to car trouble, Father then worked for DoorDash and later

at a pizza place.

       Love testified that Mother said she was studying to get her license and obtain

a job selling insurance. Mother later told Love that she failed her insurance exam

and planned to take it again, but after that claimed she had POTS, could not work,

and would file for disability. He recalled Mother stating that she worked in a

restaurant briefly and that on the way to work one day she almost had an accident.

Mother conveyed that as a result she was stressed and wanted time to check her heart

rate, but when the manager wanted her to start working and would not let her check

her heart rate, she quit.

       Love stated that he discussed finances during the sessions and explained that

budgeting is important and why, including creating the ability to ensure parents can

meet their own needs and their children’s needs. Love testified that Mother and

Father said they brought in around $4,000 but spent $4,700 on housing, an

automobile, and food.

                                         31
         Love said that when he began working with Mother and Father, they lived in

a very small camper near Lake Livingston but towards the end, around August 1st,

they reported that they moved in with Father’s mother. Love explained that he saw

their car, and it had quite a bit of damage all around, including the bumpers and

sides.

         Regarding their hygiene, Love testified that at almost every session, Father

had severe body odor, and Mother often did as well. He stated that they discussed

their hygiene several times and they claimed that they did not have the time or money

to wash their clothes. They also said they did not have a way to keep their clothes

off the floor, so their pets defecated on the clothes. They often wore soiled clothes

because they did not have clean clothes to wear. He testified that there were moments

when their body odor was not detectable, but more often, they had body odor.

         Love stated that Father did not successfully complete individual counseling,

and he was eventually discharged without making much progress. He testified that

Mother and Father also made little progress in family counseling.

         Love admitted that he relied on other sources for information besides Mother

and Father, including information from the caseworker, the affidavit in support of

removal, and psychological evaluations. This helped Love tailor counseling to the

recommendations in the psychological report, and it provided background on the

areas Mother and Father needed help. Love stated that he walked by the room where

                                          32
Mother and Father were visiting with Ivy, but he only poked his head in to speak

briefly.

       Next, Grandmother, Mother’s paternal grandmother, testified that she was not

involved in Mother’s childhood much after Mother was adopted by her stepfather.

Grandmother stated that communication with Mother ended by Mother’s mother

when Mother was around five years old. She testified that she reconnected with

Mother during her pregnancy around June or July 2024, after her son resumed

communicating with Mother. Grandmother stated that she was excited about

Mother’s pregnancy and hosted a baby shower to help Mother prepare for Ivy.

       Grandmother recalled meeting Ivy when she was about two weeks old, and

she learned that the Department became involved with Ivy on the day Ivy went to

the hospital. After her son was denied placement for Ivy, Grandmother testified that

she applied for placement. Then, the Department conducted a home study and

background check before placing Ivy in her care. On December 16, Ivy was placed

with Grandmother when she was three months old, and she is now a little over a year

old. She stated that on September 24, Ivy had her first birthday, and she had a

birthday party. She described Ivy as happy and healthy. Photos of Ivy throughout

her time with Grandmother were shown to the jury.

       Grandmother recalled that Mother initially reached out and checked on Ivy

once or twice a week, but Father did not reach out until the day before Ivy’s first

                                        33
birthday. Grandmother explained that after Ivy had ear surgery for tubes, Mother’s

communication dwindled, and she did not call to check on Ivy or ask for photos.

Grandmother agreed that she had the caseworker ask Mother to not reach out on the

day of the surgery because she knew it would be a busy day.

      Grandmother testified that Ivy visits with her cousins at least once or twice a

week and has bonded with them. On a typical day, Ivy goes to daycare while

Grandmother goes to work, and after they return home, they have dinner, play, bathe,

and go to bed. Grandmother stated that she is willing to provide long-term care for

Ivy and is willing to adopt her. She stated that she has prepared to adopt Ivy by

getting her foster license and having more home studies. She shared that she would

allow Mother and Father to see Ivy if it is in her best interest.

      Grandmother stated that she was not involved when her son relinquished his

parental rights to Mother. She testified that her son’s paternal grandmother raised

him, because she was fifteen when she had him. She explained that her son lived

with her briefly when he was fourteen before choosing to live with his father. She

noted that she raised her daughter.

      She testified that Mother contacted her the week before checking on Ivy and

asked how she was doing. Grandmother responded that Ivy was doing fine and stated

that Mother often texts during the day while she is at work, so it is hard to have a




                                          34
conversation. She stated that she was unopposed to Mother calling her if they

discussed Ivy only.

      Grandmother acknowledged that it was hard losing her connection with

Mother and not seeing her from the time she was five years old until she was an adult

because family is important. She agreed that Mother’s and Father’s relationship with

Ivy is important. Grandmother stated that she has not supervised any visits with Ivy

and only saw Mother and Father interact with Ivy once when the Department was

involved but before placement. She explained that there were things she would have

changed about how the Parents handled Ivy during the visitation, but it was not her

place to comment.

      Mother testified that she is twenty years old, and she is unemployed. She last

worked at a restaurant for about a week in August, and it ended due to her POTS

causing her to be unstable walking and needing to go to the bathroom to vomit often

due to an elevated heart rate. Mother failed the exam to become a licensed insurance

agent and did not have the money to retake it. She also worked at another restaurant

for about a month, but it ended in part because of her heart rate and POTS.

      Mother stated that she had an appointment to see a doctor about her POTS,

but days before the appointment she was informed that the doctor did not accept her

insurance. She stated that POTS is treated with electrolyte and salt infusions. Mother

confirmed that she told the caseworker that she was considering applying for

                                         35
disability benefits, and she finally did so, although approval could take up to one

year. In the meantime, she has applied for work that would not be hard on her body.

      Mother stated that POTS stands for Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia

Syndrome, and it causes her blood to pool if she stands up too fast or lies down

wrong, ultimately causing her blood pressure to drop and her heart rate to jump. She

was diagnosed in May 2023. Mother stated that she sees doctors at the Burke Center

for her POTS, anxiety, and ADHD.

      Mother testified that she has a permit to drive and needs more practice before

getting her license. She stated that she and Father have had car trouble but are

planning to get it fixed with Father’s next paycheck. She acknowledged that Father

made $4,000 monthly, and most of the money went to rent and car upkeep. She stated

that they lived in a camper for six months that cost $700 a month, and they lost

money paying for gas for the visits.

      Mother stated that they currently live with Father’s mother and stepfather,

though they lived with Father’s father when Ivy was born and when this began. She

testified that they paid Father’s father $600 a month, and four additional people lived

in the home until April. After April, only three additional people lived in the home.

Mother, Father and Ivy shared one of the three bedrooms.

      Mother said that Father’s stepmother threw them out, and they went to live

with her father. His home had three bedrooms, and four additional people lived there.

                                          36
Mother and Father resided in the living room for about two months then moved out

to have their own space.

      Mother testified that after leaving her father’s home, she and Father rented an

RV in Livingston for $700 a month. She stated that they had two cats and a dog, but

when they were evicted for nonpayment, the landlord threw the pets out. They then

moved in with Father’s mother, which is where they currently live. They pay

Father’s mother $200 a month, and Mother claimed they are trying to get HUD

housing. Father’s mother’s home has two bedrooms, and only Father’s mother and

stepfather live there, so Mother and Father share a bedroom.

      Mother testified that they went to two different “therapy places” but one place

did not take her insurance, so she was kicked out. She felt therapy was helpful but

claimed one ended after she missed two sessions. Mother stated that they also did

family counseling, which was helpful initially, but she felt that the therapist began

to focus on money.

      Mother stated that she took two types of parenting classes and was supposed

to do another but was never contacted. Mother described learning how to advocate

for her child at school, the nutritional value of certain foods, the effects of time-out,

and how relationships can affect a child.

      Mother admitted that she has struggled with her mental health since she was

a child and was placed in a residential facility for her mental health when her mother

                                            37
did not want to deal with her. She stated that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder

in February 2021, and she was prescribed a “whole binder” of medication though

she does not recall the names. Mother explained that she stopped taking her

medication when she learned that she was pregnant with Ivy, and she was advised

to see if she could handle not taking medication. If she needed medication, the doctor

would have prescribed pregnancy-safe medication, but she claimed she did not need

medication because she used her coping skills to not harm Ivy. She stated that she

stayed off the medications after her pregnancy. Mother recalled that the medications

she was on before her pregnancy were to treat anxiety, bipolar disorder, and ADHD.

She was also prescribed medications for her nightmares, and she only takes that

medicine every other night to last until they can get the car repaired and she can see

the doctor.

      Mother agreed that as a parent, it is important to take care of your mental

health, and she stated that she has different coping skills including having mints and

sour gum to help her. She is on the waitlist for therapy through her health insurance.

Mother stated that her additional coping skills are sewing, drawing, and deep

breathing exercises.

      As for the incident that led to the Department’s involvement, she testified that

on October 28, she heard Ivy crying and thought Ivy was getting her diaper changed.

She stated that Father was finishing up changing Ivy’s diaper, and she could tell that

                                         38
he was overstimulated because he was doing his breathing exercises. She shared that

Father was calm, but she noticed that something was wrong with Ivy, and “her leg

did not look right.” She testified that she did not ask Father what happened because

she was focused on getting Ivy the care that she needed. The car ride to the hospital

took fifteen to twenty minutes, and during this time, she did not ask Father what

happened because she was trying to decide which hospital would be best. Mother

said that she felt Ivy’s leg, and something felt wrong, and she thought it might be

broken.

      Mother learned that Ivy’s femur was fractured at the hospital after x-rays were

taken. She believed that Father caught Ivy and prevented her from hitting the floor,

which would have hurt Ivy even more, though she was not in the room. She believed

that Ivy hit something coming up. She admitted that she had seen Father get angry

but claimed he was never violent. Mother had a moment when she was skeptical of

Father’s story but figured he would have slipped by now if it was not the truth.

      When she learned about all Ivy’s injuries, she did not ask Father if he did

anything to hurt Ivy’s liver because she never believed he did anything, so there was

no reason to ask. She does believe that Ivy’s liver was injured, and she believed that

Ivy hit something resulting in her liver laceration. Mother testified that she does not

believe it was possible that Father got frustrated and hurt Ivy. She stated that she has

never hit or hurt Ivy, and she has never seen Father hit her.

                                          39
      Mother attributed the sores on Ivy’s face to Ivy becoming “frustrated and

fussy” and then trying to comfort herself by scratching her face. She claimed that

she asked the hospital nurses about the bruise inside Ivy’s ear, and they told her there

was no bruise. Mother testified that she did not see a bruise in the photos shown and

that what she saw looked like vomit. Mother stated that the bruise on Ivy’s arm was

from being tested at Memorial Hermann The Woodlands for jaundice in the

emergency room. She admitted that the doctor testified that they do not put IVs in

the arm, but she stated that the emergency room is different.

      When asked if she took responsibility for Ivy’s injuries, Mother responded

that she should have changed Ivy’s diaper because she “was better at it.” She claimed

that she went to therapy and attended as many visits as possible to get Ivy back. She

stated that she hopes her disability is approved to financially support Ivy, that she

could get a job, and Father could get a second job or a better job once his car is

repaired. She testified that to get to the doctor’s office she would use Medicaid rides,

or she would keep the car though she admitted that she would need to get a license

first. She would get groceries delivered or wait until Father was home. She admitted

that Ivy’s crib was in storage and if she got a job, Father’s mother or her relative

would watch Ivy. She stated that she last saw Ivy in August.

      Mother testified that she reconnected with her father and grandmother in May

2023, before being pregnant with Ivy. She received prenatal care during her

                                          40
pregnancy at two places, and she followed all the doctors’ recommendations while

pregnant. She stated that she brought Ivy to her pediatric appointments, and Ivy was

doing great and was healthy. Father or his relative took her to Ivy’s appointments.

       Mother explained that Bob was a “nonexistent person they had.” If she asked

Father to do something and he got mad, she would ask if Bob could do it instead,

though she does not always remember doing that. Mother testified that she tries to

use “I feel” statements but sometimes she walks off or tells Father to go get on a

game, which seems to work for them. She stated that she and Father are not married

but still live together.

       Mother testified that she advocated for Ivy by tracking when she could have

her pain medicine. Mother suggested that if Ivy is returned to her care, there would

be a lot more room and she would monitor her now that she is moving. Mother stated

that the Department refused to move the visits to a more convenient location, and

both she and Father try to keep in touch with Grandmother to keep up with how Ivy

is doing. She testified that throughout the case, they lived in four cities. Mother stated

that she kept in contact with the caseworker throughout the case.

       Mother stated that she initially told doctors that Ivy was on the bed when she

fell because that is what she assumed happened. She claimed that Ivy rolled the first

time when she was around one month old. Mother admitted that she was never upset




                                           41
with Father for dropping Ivy because accidents happen, and she believes this was an

accident.

      Next, Victoria Warmuth, supervisor with Child Advocates of Montgomery

County (“CAMC”) or CASA, testified that she has worked with CASA since 2019

and her role is to supervise court-appointed volunteers for children in the child

welfare system to provide educational needs and address concerns that brought the

family to the attention of the department. Warmuth stated that she became involved

in Ivy’s case in early July after the advocate had to temporarily step back. Warmuth

visited Ivy in her daycare and placement, connected with the parents, and worked

with the case worker. She explained that her duties include being responsible for the

best interests of the child, providing informed and accurate recommendations to the

Court, and connecting with educational providers including daycares, medical

providers, caregivers, biological family, the attorneys and caseworker. She considers

the physical and emotional needs of the child in the present and future when

determining the best interest, along with the parents’ abilities.

      Warmuth testified that on September 24th, she visited Mother and Father at

their current home and where they intended for Ivy to return. Neither Father’s mother

nor stepfather were home during the visit. According to Warmuth, both Mother and

Father were home, and she saw two cats and one dog in a cage outside. She stated

that there were several safety concerns including a propane tank outside, along with

                                          42
lighters that suggested someone was smoking outside, and the home was fairly small

with cleaning and household chemicals on the floor, which would be a safety hazard

for a walking one-year-old. She noted litter boxes and cat food on the floor with no

baby gate to prevent Ivy’s access, and the bedroom did not have a sleeping space

designated for her. She further noted a designated area near the door but there were

clothes blocking the door, and the room had a strong scent of body odor. Warmuth

stated that there was a weapon in the home, but they could not locate it, and the

Parents could not say if it was secured, which was another concern with a one-year-

old in the home.

      Warmuth stated that there was no crib for Ivy and that the Parents discussed

a bassinet which Warmuth said was inappropriate for a one-year-old. Mother and

Father slept on an air mattress that did not have sheets, and the room had portable

hangers along the back wall that also had a door and a pile of clothing. She did not

know if the clothing was clean or dirty, but the plan was for Ivy to sleep in front of

the door that may or may not have been secured. The room had extension cords

throughout, along with car parts in the closet, and medications that were not being

taken as prescribed. Warmuth admitted that a child did not live in the home, and

there may not have been a need to babyproof the home at the time of her visit.

      Warmuth testified that she discussed finance management with Mother and

Father. At the time, Father’s cell phone was off, and he reported that he made $600

                                         43
a month and paid $400 a month in rent. Though they lived in an active area, Father

reported that he could not find work in addition to his current job at Domino’s.

Warmuth was unable to get a clear answer from Mother about working. Warmuth

testified that Mother mentioned having POTS, and Warmuth told her that she had it

as well and works a part-time job. Mother also discussed wanting to move to a larger

home but did not explain how they would afford it.

      Warmuth discussed childcare for Ivy, and Mother suggested that “people at

daycares are creeps and are pedophiles.” When she asked who could watch Ivy, they

were only able to provide first names.

      When Warmuth discussed mental health with the parents, Father said that he

was rationing his medication by taking them every three days because they could not

get to the facility, although Warmuth noted that there was a facility seven minutes

from their home. Mother told Warmuth that she could not find her medications, so

it was unclear if or how often Mother was taking them. Warmuth testified that she

talked to Mother about the Texas Women’s Program that would cover psychiatric

medication and counseling, and Mother insisted that it did not.

      Warmuth stated that Mother’s and Father’s mental health care concerned her

because parents need to be stable, whether that meant to be on mediation, in therapy,

or both. She understood that Mother and Father have mental health issues that need

to be addressed and require support. She was concerned that they would be unable

                                         44
to provide adequate care for Ivy if their needs are not being met. This presents a

safety risk for Ivy.

      Warmuth stated that she has met with Grandmother and been to her home

several times and it appears safe. She testified that Ivy is a happy baby, and her needs

are being met. Warmuth recommended that Mother’s and Father’s parental rights be

terminated so that Ivy can be adopted by Grandmother. Warmuth explained that

recommendation is based on Ivy’s immediate needs for physical and emotional

safety and on Mother’s and Father’s lack of plans, instability, mental health, housing,

and the reason for removal since they do not know what exactly happened to cause

her injury. She testified that “the idea of sending a child back into that environment

is frightening.”

      Warmuth observed two or three visits in the beginning and noted that Mother

was “a little combative” when given feedback about how to hold Ivy. According to

Warmuth, a one-and-a-half to two-month-old cannot hold her head up, but Mother

and Father had inappropriate expectations of what Ivy could do at that age. She

further testified that she sent Mother and Father TBRI training videos, but they did

not follow through with it. She did not speak with the other people living in the home

with Mother and Father. Warmuth’s visit with Mother and Father was before their

twelve-week parenting course; therefore, she did not see what they might be able to

demonstrate after the parenting class.

                                          45
      Next, Teresa Horton, conservatorship specialist for the Department, testified

that she has been with the Department for six years. As a case worker, she works

with the children to make sure their educational, medical, and dental needs are met,

along with ensuring they thrive in a safe environment. She works with the parents to

develop a family plan and build services around the reason for the child being in the

Department’s care.

      Horton was assigned to this case in November 2024 with the goal of family

reunification or kinship or foster care. Horton testified that at the end of a case, they

monitor the family for a certain amount of time after the child is returned to them.

Cases in the Department normally last one year, because the dismissal deadline is

one year from the date the child was brought into the Department’s care.

      Horton explained that a family plan lists services such as parenting classes,

psychiatric evaluation, and counseling, for each parent. Horton stated that she made

a service plan for Mother and Father. Mother’s plan included parenting classes,

individual counseling, family counseling, psychological evaluation, and a

psychiatric evaluation. Though Horton was told that Mother completed the

psychiatric evaluation, she never received the report from the Burke Center. Horton

stated that Father’s plan was identical to Mother’s plan, and she did not receive

Father’s psychiatric evaluation, if it was completed. Horton did receive a medication

list. Horton stated that Mother and Father initially chose the Burke Center. Horton

                                           46
explained that the service plans are long-term treatment plans, and if the parents

move, she will set up providers in the new area. She stated that she set the parents

up for psychiatric evaluations, but Mother asked if they could do the evaluations at

Tri-County, and she allowed it. Horton stated that the Department pays for the

services. She testified that in the beginning there was a concern for substance abuse,

but after they provided a drug test, substance abuse counseling was removed from

Mother’s and Father’s plan.

      Horton testified that she does not consider the parents to have stable housing.

In the beginning, they lived with Father’s father and stepmother, and then they

moved out in December when Father’s stepmother asked them to leave. They then

moved to Mother’s father’s home for approximately three months before moving

into an RV in Livingston, Texas. They lived in the RV approximately six or seven

months before they were evicted for nonpayment. According to Horton, Mother and

Father then moved in with Father’s mother and stepfather, which is where they live

today. Living in four different places during this case is a concern as a case worker,

because it shows lack of housing stability, which is important for a child. She spoke

with Mother and Father in the beginning about getting on a waitlist for housing, but

the Parents said they had their own plans.

      Horton testified that she spoke with Mother and Father monthly, and

discussed the visits, the cancelation of the visits, the status of Mother’s disability

                                         47
application, and the classes in the service plan to keep Mother and Father on track.

Horton stated that she discussed employment with the Parents, because it is

important in cases with the Department to show financial stability, security, and to

show your ability to take care of your children. She recalled that Father was first

employed by a pool company as a pool tech, but he was let go after calling in too

often once the car had broken down. According to Horton, the car broke down at the

end of May or early June, and the Parents were working to save money to fix it. It

seemed like the car was repaired because Mother and Father began attending visits

again, but it broke down again. Horton recalled that Father worked for DoorDash

and for a pizza company, she believed. Horton stated that Mother worked for a short

amount of time and was working on getting her license. She recalled that Mother

took classes to sell life insurance and worked at a restaurant for a short time. Mother

told Horton that she could not handle the heat in the kitchen, so she quit the restaurant

job. Mother informed Horton that she applied for disability benefits, but Horton

never saw the completed application.

      Horton stated that on September 24, she visited the home where Mother and

Father currently live. She stated that Father said that he made $600 a month, and

Mother was not working.

      Business records from Mother’s therapist, Kayla Baca, were admitted as

evidence, and Horton testified that she reviewed the records when she received them

                                           48
in June and was concerned. Horton testified that the records reveal medical issues

such as bipolar, general anxiety disorder, POTS, that Mother was five months

postpartum, and that she vapes occasionally.

      On the notes from March 12, 2025, Horton testified that under area of risk,

low risk of suicide ideation was written with no intent to act. The notes also suggest

that Mother reported that Ivy kicked hard off Father, because she did not want her

diaper changed causing Father to drop her. The notes state Mother picked Ivy up

“‘and her leg was like this’” and the notes suggest that Mother was acting out a

floppy broken limb. The notes state that Mother avoided saying that Ivy’s leg was

broken from a fall, that the Department was contacted by the emergency room as a

mandated reporter, and that Mother quickly redirected the conversation about

various off topic subjects.

      Horton testified that the notes reveal that on March 17, 2025, Mother was a

no-show, and on the next page it lists medications such as Abilify, Hydroxyzine, and

Prazosin. The notes then state that Mother reported that she had refilled those

medications and intended to begin taking them because they helped her in the past.

The notes further suggest that Mother reported she lost two of the three medications,

and she completed a parenting education course and stated that six-month-olds do

not play with toys. Horton read the notes that reflected that Mother believed she had

ADHD and had many chaotic people in her life. The notes stated that Mother spent

                                         49
most sessions distressed and yelling at her cats intermittently, and Mother had very

little understanding of child development or appropriate learning modalities for

infants.

      Horton recounted notes dated March 27, 2025, that said Mother had a birthday

celebration but reported that strangers arrived, so she had a knife in her hand to

protect herself, but the strangers were Mormons. Mother reported that she still could

not locate two medications and felt like she could not catch a break.

      Horton read notes dated March 31, 2025, that stated Mother was in a bad mood

and that the house is a mess because Father does not help. The notes stated that

Mother briefly mentioned Ivy had a broken leg. It was reported that Mother

continued to demonstrate poor emotional regulation, paranoid thought patterns,

thought-blocking patterns and referred to Ivy’s broken leg as if Ivy did it herself

while refusing to state the actual events of the incident and who is to blame.

      Notes from April 7, 2025, said that Mother had problems with a neighbor who

allowed their flea-covered dogs to roam free. The notes state that Mother adopted

one dog and called animal control on the others.

      Notes from an April 14, 2025, session show that Mother stated that she and

Father were unable to see Ivy that week due to his work schedule. She also reported

that they have a chance to make extra money through DoorDash to get Ivy an Easter

basket and possibly go to ComicCon. The notes suggested that Mother was

                                         50
preoccupied with social drama of her sixteen-year-old brother and that Mother

demonstrated possible developmental delays with lower cognitive reasoning skills.

      Next, notes from April 21, 2025, were read that said Mother had not located

her missing medication and planned to purchase a lockbox for medicine storage, and

she and Father will postpone a wedding until Ivy is home. The notes stated that on

May 5, 2025, Mother was a no-show.

      Horton read notes dated May 19, 2025, that reflected that Mother requested

an impromptu session because of troubling events. The notes stated that Mother

reported that Father lost his job due to unreliable transportation after their car broke

down, and she had not seen Ivy in three weeks and knew the Department was

working to award custody to Grandmother. The notes reported that Mother and

Father are “‘at each other’s throats’” because they have no car and nowhere to go,

are late on rent, and was given a three-day notice to vacate if they did not pay the

rent. Mother reported that they were trying to sell items to make rent and fix the car.

Mother conveyed that she is not sleeping well and only ate a full meal because

friends felt sorry for them and took them to Whataburger the day before. Mother

reported that she had been eating the food in the house sparingly and that she is

taking her medications as prescribed. The notes stated that Mother exchanged text

messages with her father and cried after reading them, saying that her father never

shows up for her. The notes further indicated that Mother was disappointed in

                                          51
Father’s lack of initiative to solve their problems, and he “‘threw a fit’” when she

decided he needed to sell his X-box for rent money. Mother expressed continued

frustration with the case worker. The notes indicated that Mother did not

demonstrate any understanding of the consequences of her choices and actions; she

continued to blame others for her misfortune or inability to carry out productive

tasks. Horton testified that she was not present for the therapy sessions and does not

know if the notes are an accurate transcription of what Mother said.

      Horton testified that beginning November 9, 2024, parent-child visits were

scheduled for every Tuesday from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. She stated that some visits were

great, while others were decent or concerning. Horton, or an available case worker

if she was unavailable, supervised the visits with the CASA advocate. At the time,

Ivy was in her brace, and Horton felt Mother was too rough holding Ivy and did not

take redirection well when told to support Ivy’s head. Horton described other

instances when Mother pulled on Ivy’s leg in a rough way and blew on her stomach

in a way that made Ivy cry. Another time, when Ivy was just learning to sit up on

her own, she fell backwards and hit her head, and Mother and Father only got up to

check on Ivy after Horton reacted. Horton testified that she was concerned about

reinjury of Ivy’s leg due to Mother and Father holding her in an awkward position

that caused Ivy to cry.




                                         52
      Horton stated that during a visit, Mother and Father brought up the topic of

“whipping and switching their children” and Horton told them that was not an

appropriate topic especially considering where they were. She recalled that Mother

and Father would not have full-blown arguments during visits, but there were times

when Mother told Father that he would be on the couch that night or she would

“shush” him. She pointed out that they fell asleep during a visit, and remained asleep

for twenty-five to thirty minutes, while Ivy was awake. Horton recalled that she had

to tell Father to make sure he cleaned Ivy well after a dirty diaper because he did not

get in the crevices. Horton stated that Dad changed most of Ivy’s diapers. She

testified that despite concerns, she did not stop the visits but would have if Ivy were

in imminent danger. She stepped in to redirect the Parents when she saw concerning

behavior. Though Mother and Father listened, Horton stated that neither handled her

direction well.

      According to Horton, the Parents last visited Ivy on August 12, after she

coordinated transportation for them. This is not the normal procedure for the

Department to provide transportation. Part of the service plan is to be able to get to

and from visits, and the Parents knew of that expectation. She confirmed that the

Parents missed quite a few visits with Ivy and sometimes they informed her in

advance while other times they were no-call/no-shows. Their excuses for missing

visits were no transportation mostly, or that they were sick. Horton recalled that

                                          53
Mother asked for accommodation for the visitation location once, but she informed

Mother that the supervised visits were at CASA or the Conroe office. Horton

testified that the parents were fairly regular on their visits, but they would cancel due

to lack of transportation or sickness. Horton admitted that she canceled one visit

when she was sick and she gave the Parents an extra hour on two visits to make up

the canceled time. Horton testified that the Parents were not always clean when they

came to visits.

      Ivy’s medical records from Lake Area Pediatrics, the facility that Ivy received

care from after she was born, were admitted as evidence. Horton testified that she

reviewed the documents at the beginning of the case and was concerned about notes

that showed Ivy’s failure to thrive before being in the Department’s care. Other notes

in the records further reflected that Ivy was well-developed, well-nourished, and

under no apparent distress. A note dated October 24, 2024, states that Ivy was

underweight rather than failing to thrive. The records also state that Ivy was

immunized and attended all well-baby checkups. Horton agreed that the pediatrician

is a mandated reporter and there was no report of concern.

      A summary of the visits was admitted as evidence. Horton explained the color

key of the summary and stated that items marked red are visits the Parents canceled.

She testified that the Parents missed approximately forty-eight hours of visitation

which was about twenty-four visits, and they did not maintain significant contact

                                           54
with Ivy. She did not believe the Parents demonstrated an ability to provide a safe

and stable environment for Ivy. Horton testified that there were concerns about Ivy’s

continued safety, the lack of actual stable housing and lack of actual financial

stability, because neither Mother nor Father could keep a job. She believed it is in

Ivy’s best interest that the Parents’ rights are terminated and that Ivy be adopted by

Grandmother.

      Grandfather testified that he is Mother’s biological father, and he did not raise

Mother after his divorce. According to Grandfather, Mother was hidden from him

when she was around six years old. He resumed contact with Mother when she was

about seventeen years old, and he stayed in contact with Mother daily during her

pregnancy.

      Grandfather learned of Ivy’s injury on the day it occurred when the Parents

called, and he went to the hospital. The Parents told him that Ivy fell but was injured

when Father grabbed her and pulled her back up.

      He testified that he offered to be a placement for Ivy, but she was eventually

placed with his mother. He last saw Ivy at the end of September for her birthday

party, and she seemed happy and healthy.

      Grandfather recalled that Mother and Father lived with him for about four

months, and he asked them to move “because it was disrupting our normal everyday

lives.” He testified that they were messy, did not pick up after themselves, did not

                                          55
get along well, and were childish. After leaving his home, Mother and Father moved

into an RV, and he gave them money for the first month’s rent to help them.

      An audio of a voicemail that Father left on Grandfather’s phone was admitted

as evidence and played. In the audio, Father is upset and tells Grandfather to fix their

car because they have been waiting for four weeks. Grandfather stated that after the

voicemail, he decided that he was done helping them. He believed that he last spoke

with Mother around the time Father left the voicemail.

      Dr. Jenny Stadler testified that she has been a licensed clinical psychologist

since 2006 and that about seventy-five percent of her practice is Department

referrals. She explained that the Department pays for a completed evaluation.

      Dr. Stadler stated that in March 2025, she evaluated Mother and Father, and

the evaluations were admitted as evidence. She explained that a psychological

evaluation takes about three hours and includes completing paperwork and

conducting an extensive interview. Afterward, she prepares a report. Dr. Stadler

stated that she always receives case information from the Department and sometimes

receives background records. She recalled that here, she knew that both parents

received treatment from the Burke Center, a mental health center, but the records

were not made available to her although she tried to get them.

      Dr. Stadler testified that Mother relayed Ivy was dropped. Regarding her own

past, Mother stated that she experienced physical and emotional abuse but denied

                                          56
any physical abuse by Father, although Mother stated that Father could be “very

angry at times and that he might throw things[,]” and had “mood switches.” She

stated that Mother’s statements about Ivy raised a red or pink flag, because Mother

was attributing infant behavior to intentionality and believed Ivy enjoyed abusing

her. Mother reported a significant history of mental health treatment and that she

was in a psychiatric hospital approximately seven times since the age of fourteen.

Mother also reported that in 2022, she was in residential treatment but did not feel

anything helpful and that it was emotional abuse. According to Dr. Stadler, Mother

revealed that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder,

depression, and ADHD. Mother shared that she was prescribed “a lot of medicine as

a child,” and while in treatment. Dr. Stadler also stated that Mother indicated that

she had POTS, a condition that Dr. Stadler believed caused fainting and a racing

heart. During her evaluation, Mother described instances that caused Dr. Stadler to

believe that she was dissociating and pretending she was in a different place due to

trauma. Dr. Stadler’s notes also stated they discussed suicidal ideation, and Mother

reported that she last experienced suicidal ideation when this case began. Dr. Stadler

testified that Mother’s unemployment was not unusual for her age, but Mother had

an unusual interest in Care Bears and belonged to a Care Bear group. According to

Dr. Stadler, Mother indicated that she had a decent number of social relationships,




                                         57
and she relied on Father, her stepmother, and a new friend who she met online for

social support.

      Dr. Stadler’s overall impression of Mother was that she was emotionally

immature. Dr. Stadler based this on Mother’s statements about Ivy, her interests, and

how she discussed her relationship with Father. According to Dr. Stadler, this lack

of emotional development is not unusual for someone who has had many traumas.

She said that she conducted an ADHD test on Mother, and it did not show ADHD,

but she may have problems with distractibility. Dr. Stadler said that she also

conducted a Personality Assessment Inventory on Mother to measure personality

and emotional functioning, and the results were consistent with what Mother

reported, but Mother tended to respond in an overly emotional manner. Dr. Stadler

testified that she gave three additional parenting instruments, the Child Abuse

Potential Inventory and two that would show a parental stress scale. Mother’s score

suggested moderate stress in the parenting role which is unusual, and she did fine on

the other stress scale. Dr. Stadler indicated concern on the Child Abuse Potential

Inventory because Mother met the cutoff level to be high risk for child abuse.

      According to Dr. Stadler, Mother relayed that she was prescribed Prazosin,

Hydroxyzine, and Abilify. Dr. Stadler stated that the Abilify was consistent with her

bipolar disorder, and the Hydroxyzine was consistent for the anxiety symptoms

Mother described. That said, Prazosin is typically prescribed for nightmares

                                         58
consistent with PTSD, but Mother did not report that diagnosis. Dr. Stadler did not

feel that Mother met the mood criteria for bipolar disorder, but Abilify can be

prescribed for many things. She stated that many symptoms Mother described were

consistent with personality disorder traits but given Mother’s emotional immaturity,

some of her behaviors were consistent with a flamboyant, active teenager, and not

personality disorder.

      Dr. Stadler determined that in Mother’s case, there is a risk due to her mental

health disorders and the concern for her emotional immaturity. She explained that

mental health disorders can be treated with medication or through a variety of

individual therapies. She stated that it is best for patients prescribed psychotropic

medications to be consistent and regularly meet with a psychiatrist. Dr. Stadler

admitted that she did not believe Mother had taken any parenting classes, but she

stated that parenting classes might not change the risk.

      Regarding Father, Dr. Stadler stated that when she performed the

psychological evaluation, he reported physical abuse as a child when he was

disciplined with a pool stick and punched in the face. According to Dr. Stadler,

Father reported that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, and autism at

age five. Father reported to Dr. Stadler that Father had significant difficulty with

speech, eye contact, and social communication. Dr. Stadler testified that Father

reported that in the past he used alcohol, smoked marijuana, and took Xanax and

                                         59
mushrooms. Father also reported past suicidal ideation and described an incident

approximately three years earlier where he had been using alcohol and drugs and

had a knife or gun in his hand, but a friend stopped him. He also reported a family

history of substance abuse. Father said that he liked playing video games.

      Dr. Stadler testified that she did testing on Father, and Mother stated that she

would help Father with the written form, but Dr. Stadler did not allow it. Testing

showed that Father’s reading ability was at a third-grade level, so he was only

required to do one of the parenting instruments and she did not give him any

advanced instruments. The instrument was consistent with Father’s reporting of a

history of verbal difficulties as a child. She testified that she examined three areas of

Father’s functioning, including executive functioning, attention, and learning and

memory, which are part of an executive functioning package. Father struggled to

follow the testing sequence for some parts that dealt with sequencing and cognitive

flexibility, even at a third-grade level, including the order of the alphabet. Dr. Stadler

explained that she stopped the test at that point because the next part required time

sequencing numbers and letters, and there was no point in continuing if he could not

sequence the letters. She testified that next was a color word interference test that

evaluated the brain’s flexibility. She noted that Father made almost no errors, but his

response time was very slow to the point that she sensed he might have attempted to

not do well by performing very slowly. Dr. Stadler was concerned that Father was

                                           60
malingering or attempting to look worse than he was and she was unclear on Father’s

motivation. She did not test him for malingering. She did not find his memory to be

impaired, but Father relied on his memory loss to not answer questions, which was

concerning. Dr. Stadler testified that she conducted the Child Abuse Predictor

Inventory on Father, and he was above the abuse cutoff for being consistent with

parents who are adjudicated abusers.

      Dr. Stadler verified that Father was prescribed Prozac and Hydroxyzine, and

that such medications are generally prescribed for bipolar disorder.

      She recommended that Father be observed interacting with Ivy by a trained

parenting education or family therapist with the goal of assessing his ability to

recognize and meet Ivy’s developmental needs with appropriate intervention.

      Dr. Stadler testified that she met with Mother and Father at the Department’s

office but never observed their visits with Ivy, though it might have been helpful but

hard to arrange.

      Before closing arguments, Father’s counsel, R. Douglas Downing, informed

the trial judge that during recess, he saw Horton, the Department’s caseworker,

conversing with a juror. Counsel stated that he did not know the nature of the

conversation, but he immediately contacted the Department’s counsel, Tamara

Holland. Downing stated that Horton and the juror were sitting next to each for a

few minutes, at the very least.

                                         61
      Holland responded and acknowledged that the communication was

inappropriate and stated that Horton said that they were talking about lunch. In

response, the trial judge called Horton back to testify about what was discussed.

      Horton testified that after realizing that the door was locked, she sat in the

hallway and a couple jurors came by and sat down before going into the jury room.

She believed it to be juror number one that she spoke with. Horton stated that the

juror mentioned not wanting to go inside the juror room, because it was loud and

then they talked about lunch. Horton testified that she did not remember all the

conversation, but it was simply her being cordial. Horton admitted to hearing the

trial court’s admonishments about not speaking with the jurors, and the conversation

went beyond saying good morning or good afternoon. Horton testified that she did

not know that being cordial was inappropriate but acknowledged that having a

conversation with a juror was inappropriate. Horton testified that they did not discuss

the case.

      According to Horton, the juror stated that she did not leave for lunch and

Horton responded that she went to Chick-Fil-A which is where the conversation

ended. The juror also thanked Horton for her service, which Horton understood to

mean her job.

      After Horton’s testimony, Downing moved for a mistrial due to the

communication, and the trial court and parties addressed replacing the juror with an

                                          62
alternate. Mother’s counsel, Claire Lindsay, asked that Horton’s testimony and any

exhibits Horton proved up be struck from the record and that the jury charge include

a mistrial instruction. The trial court denied the request.

      The Juror also testified that Horton complimented her bracelets, and she

responded that they were great for travel and in the pool. The Juror stated that she

did not speak with any other jurors about her conversation with Horton or the case,

and she remembered the jury instructions given at the beginning of the case. The

Juror said that she thanked Horton for her service but had not spoken to any jurors

about the testimony or about any of the parties.

      At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial judge excused the Juror along

with juror number thirty-nine, from jury duty. Lindsay, Mother’s counsel, then

reurged a motion for a mistrial based on Horton’s conversation with the Juror, and

the trial court denied the motion. The trial court reasoned it had no basis to believe

that the remainder of the jury was tainted in any way. The trial judge then informed

juror number thirty-eight that he was on the panel, and he was sent to the jury room.

      After deliberating, 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
      conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional
      well-being of the child?

      Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:
                                          63
[Ivy]: 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 “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: Yes

Question No. 3:

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] has
constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or
temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and
Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months
and: (1) the Department or authorized agency has made reasonable
efforts to return the child to the mother; (2) the mother has not regularly
visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and (3) the
mother has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe
environment?

Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: 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 “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: Yes

Question No. 5:
                                    64
Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [] the Department
made reasonable efforts to return the child to [Mother] and despite those
efforts, a continuing danger remains in [Mother’s] home?

Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: 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
conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional
well-being of the child?

Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: 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 “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

[Ivy]: Yes

Question No. 8:

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has
constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or
temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and
Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months
and: (1) the Department or authorized agency has made reasonable
efforts to return the child to the father; (2) the father has not regularly
visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and (3) the
                                    65
      father has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe
      environment?

      Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

      [Ivy]: 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 “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

      [Ivy]: Yes

      Question No. 10:

      Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [] the Department
      made reasonable efforts to return the child to [Father] and despite those
      efforts, a continuing danger remains in [Father’s] home?

      Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each child:

      [Ivy]: Yes

      On November 6, 2025, Mother filed a Motion for New Trial based on juror

misconduct. It was overruled by operation of law.

      Mother and Father appeal the termination order and argue the evidence is

legally and factually insufficient to support termination under section

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (2). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (N), (2). Mother also challenges the appointment of the Department as sole



                                         66
managing conservator and the denial of her Motion for Mistrial based on improper

juror communication.

                    Father’s Appeal and Error Preservation

      The Department argues that Father failed to preserve his legal and factual

sufficiency complaints. To preserve a legal sufficiency challenge for appeal, the

appealing party must have asserted the point by (1) a motion for instructed verdict,

(2) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (3) an objection to the

submission of the issue to the jury, (4) a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a

vital fact issue, or (5) a motion for new trial. See Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509,

510–11 (Tex. 1991); In re J.B., No. 09-16-00442-CV, 2017 WL 2180682, at *7

(Tex. App.—Beaumont May 18, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because Father filed no

such motion, his legal sufficiency complaint was not preserved for appellate review.

By failing to file a motion for new trial, Father also failed to preserve his factual

sufficiency complaint. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2); In re J.B., 2017 WL 2180682,

at *7. Because Father never brought his legal or factual sufficiency challenge to the

trial court’s attention, Father’s legal and factual sufficiency issues have not been

preserved for appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2); Smith, 804 S.W.2d at 510–11;

In re J.B., 2017 WL 2180682, at *7.




                                         67
                                Standard of Review

      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). The movant must show that

the parent committed one or more predicate acts or omissions and that termination

is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2); see

also In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm a judgment if any one

of the grounds is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence and the best-

interest finding is also supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. In re

C.A.C., Jr., No. 09-10-00477-CV, 2011 WL 1744139, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

May 5, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op).

      Under legal sufficiency review, we review 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.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d

at 266. We assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding

if a reasonable factfinder could, and we disregard all evidence that a reasonable

factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible. Id. If no

                                          68
reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must

be proven is true, the evidence is legally insufficient. Id.

      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 (2011). 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. C.H.,

89 S.W.3d at 18–19; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

                                 Predicate Grounds

      Since findings of condition endangerment under subsection D and conduct

endangerment under subsection E may be based on the same acts or omissions, we

consider them together. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); In re

B.P., No. 09-22-00031-CV, 2022 WL 2251739, at *8–9 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

June 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Under subsection D, parental rights may be

terminated based on a single act or omission by the parent. In re A.B., 125 S.W.3d

769, 776 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied); see also In re A.M., No. 09-19-

00075-CV, 2019 WL 4064579, at *18 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 29, 2019, pet.

denied) (mem. op.). Termination under subsection E requires more than a single act

                                           69
or omission and a “‘voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the

parent is required.’” See In re L.E.S., 471 S.W.3d 915, 923–25 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting Perez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory

Servs., 148 S.W.3d 427, 436 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). Under subsection

D, we examine the time before the child’s removal to determine whether the

environment of the home posed a danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-

being. See In re L.E.S., 471 S.W.3d at 92 (citing In re L.C., 145 S.W.3d 790, 795

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.)); see also In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 749

(Tex. 2022) (citations omitted). It is unnecessary that a parent know with certainty

the child is in an endangering environment; instead, awareness of the potential for

danger and disregarding the risk is enough to show endangering conduct. See In re

J.H., No. 09-20-00056-CV, 2020 WL 4516860, at *10 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug.

6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citation omitted).

      Under subsection E, the evidence must “show a conscious course of conduct”

to terminate a parent’s rights. In re C.M.C., 554 S.W.3d 164, 172 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2018, no pet.) (citation omitted). We may consider actions occurring

before and after a child’s birth to establish a “course of conduct.” Id. “A parent’s

conduct in the home can create an environment that endangers the child’s physical

and emotional well-being.” In re M.S., 662 S.W.3d 620, 629 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

2023, pet. denied) (citation omitted). “‘The factfinder may infer from past conduct

                                         70
endangering the child’s well-being that similar conduct will recur if the child is

returned to the parent.’” Id. (quoting In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.). Evidence of a parent’s failure to comply with

services to improve their mental health is a factor that a factfinder can consider in

determining whether a parent has engaged in a course of conduct that endangered

the physical and emotional well-being of a child. See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351,

365 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). A parent’s untreated

mental illness can expose a child to endangerment, because when a parent fails to

take required medication, the parent can behave erratically and neglect the child’s

care. See In re P.H., 544 S.W.3d 850, 857-58 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.).

“Generally, subjecting a child to a life of uncertainty and instability endangers the

child’s physical and emotional well-being.” In re J.S., No. 09-20-00294-CV, 2021

WL 2371244, at *8–9 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(citing In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied)).

      The evidence at trial established that Mother reported that she was diagnosed

with bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and ADHD, and she stopped taking her

medicine during her pregnancy. After Ivy’s birth, Mother reported at one point that

she did not take her medication as prescribed and skipped days to help the

medication last until she could get to the doctor. In another instance, Mother reported




                                          71
that she could not locate her medications for a period of at least five weeks and

needed a lockbox to store her medicine.

      The evidence also showed that Mother lived in four different locations during

the case and failed to obtain a stable living environment. At the time of trial, Mother

was living with Father, Father’s mother, and Father’s stepfather in a small home that

did not have a designated sleeping space for Ivy and was unclean. Mother slept on

an air mattress with Father, and Mother could not locate a firearm that was at home

and did not know if firearm was secured. Mother continued to live with Father

throughout the case despite her knowledge of Father’s anger management issues and

violent outbursts that included Father throwing things when upset. The evidence

showed that Mother did not exhibit concern about how Ivy suffered substantial

internal injuries such as a fractured femur, lacerated liver, and bruises while in

Father’s care when she was an immobile infant at five-weeks old. This was despite

a determination by hospital specialists that the injuries, particularly the lacerated

liver, were “highly concerning” for child abuse.

      The evidence established that Mother failed to obtain stable employment

throughout the case, often using her medical conditions for the reasons she either

could not maintain employment or even gain employment. Mother depended on

Father to provide financially for her and Ivy despite Father’s inability to maintain or

gain employment to do so. Evidence was also presented that Mother struggled with

                                          72
her hygiene and was often unclean with an odor during visits and therapy sessions.

Mother also admitted during the case that the home had little food, and she only had

a full meal because friends felt sorry for them and took her and Father to

Whataburger. Courts have held that violent conduct, and employment and housing

instability before and during the case creates a course of conduct from which the

factfinder could determine the parent endangered the child’s emotional and physical

well-being. See id.

      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s findings, we

conclude that the jury could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that

Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Ivy to remain in conditions or

surroundings that endangered her physical and emotional well-being and engaged in

conduct or knowingly placed Ivy with persons who engaged in conduct that

endangered her physical or emotional well-being. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266; In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 25.

                             Best Interest Challenge

      We must next determine whether the Department established by clear and

convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2). We analyze 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
                                        73
      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); In re

K.S., 420 S.W.3d 852, 855 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.). It is unnecessary

to prove all these factors as a condition precedent to parental-rights termination. In

re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. There is a strong presumption that the best interest of the

child is served by keeping the child with its natural parent. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d

112, 116 (Tex. 2006).

      At the time of trial, Ivy was about a year old. The CASA volunteer and

caseworker testified that Ivy is in a safe and stable home with Grandmother where

her physical and emotional needs are being met. The CASA volunteer recommended

that Mother’s parental rights to Ivy be terminated so that Grandmother could adopt

Ivy. Both the CASA volunteer and case worker stated that it was in Ivy’s best interest

to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Ivy and remain with Grandmother. She

stated that she made the recommendation for Ivy’s removal based on Mother’s life

uncertainty, lack of stability regarding employment, housing and mental health.

Mother testified at trial, and the evidence showed that Mother (1) could not

reasonably explain how Ivy suffered a broken leg, lacerated liver, bruises, and

abrasions, (2) failed to maintain stable employment, (3) failed to provide a stable
                                         74
and safe living environment, (4) failed to take her medications as prescribed, (5)

failed to maintain significant contact with Ivy, (6) had poor parenting abilities, and

that (7) Ivy was in a long-term placement with a relative who was meeting her needs

and providing a stable home. After examining the evidence presented at trial and

considering the Holley factors, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to

support the jury’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. See Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2); Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72.

      Based on the record before us, we conclude the evidence is both legally and

factually sufficient to support the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights

based on the predicate endangerment findings under subsections D and E, and

termination was in the child’s best interest.

      We overrule Mother’s issues one, two, and four.

           Appointment of the Department as Managing Conservator

      In her fifth issue, Mother argues that it was an abuse of discretion to appoint

the Department as managing conservator of Ivy. According to Mother, there was no

evidence of ongoing abuse, neglect, substance abuse, domestic violence or unsafe

living conditions attributable to Mother that would justify removal of a parent from

the role of managing conservator.

      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

                                           75
appointment of a managing conservator only if we determine whether it was

arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d 465, 479 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2015, no pet.). The Family Code creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent will

be named the child’s managing conservator unless the 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), (b). The finding was made by the jury in this case when it

determined that Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain

in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical or emotional well-

being of the child, and that Mother engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child

with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional

well-being of the child.

      When the parents’ rights have been terminated, Family Code section

161.207(a) governs the appointment of a managing conservator. See id. §

161.207(a); In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d at 480–81 (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.” See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.207(a). Here, Mother’s parental rights to Ivy were terminated, as such, we

                                         76
cannot conclude, as to Mother, that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing

the Department as the managing conservator. See In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d at 616; In

re N.T., 474 S.W.3d at 480–81.

      We overrule Mother’s fifth issue.

      In her final issue, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when

it failed to declare a mistrial or strike Horton’s testimony after Horton and a juror

had improper communication. According to Mother, this communication risked the

influence of the juror’s perception of Horton’s credibility and neutrality, and though

the juror was excused, this did not cure the harm.

      A trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Primrose Operating Co. v. Jones, 102 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2003, pet. denied). We likewise consider a trial court’s denial of a motion

for a new trial based on jury misconduct under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See

Agnew v. Tex. Mexican Ry. Co., No. 04-96-00814-CV, 1997 WL 360645, at *8 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio June 30, 1997, writ denied) (mem. op). To warrant a new trial

for jury misconduct, the movant must establish that (1) the misconduct occurred, (2)

it was material, and (3) it probably caused injury. See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v.

Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362, 372 (Tex. 2000). It is the movant’s burden to demonstrate

all three elements before a new trial can be granted. In re Whataburger Rests. LP,

429 S.W.3d 597, 599 (Tex. 2014) (citation omitted). Whether misconduct occurred

                                          77
and caused injury is a question of fact. Id. Injury is not probable when the evidence

shows the jury would likely have rendered the same verdict without misconduct. Id.

      In this case, the allegation of juror misconduct arose during a recess that

occurred at the conclusion of trial testimony but before closing arguments. The trial

court held a hearing and questioned Horton, the case worker, and the Juror, to

determine whether juror misconduct had occurred. Horton testified that her

comments with the Juror were about lunch, and that the Juror said that the jury room

was loud and she thanked Horton for her services. The Juror testified and recalled

Horton complimenting her bracelets. The Juror denied discussing her conversation

with Horton or the case with any jurors.

      After the testimony, the trial judge dismissed the Juror, and Mother’s counsel

reurged her motion for a mistrial. The trial judge stated that he “did not have a basis

to believe that the rest of the jury was tainted in any way by this short conversation

between [Horton] and the juror that [has been] excused. So that motion is denied.”

      The evidence established that Horton and the Juror did not discuss the case,

and that the Juror did not discuss her conversation with Horton, the case or the

testimony with the jury. Mother presented no evidence that confirmed that the

interaction between Horton and the Juror was material and probably caused injury.

See Golden Eagle Archery, 24 S.W.3d at 372. The trial court, as factfinder, was

entitled to credit the witnesses’ testimony. See id. Because the trial court as the

                                           78
factfinder determines the weight and credibility of the testimony, we cannot say that

the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. See id.

      We overrule Mother’s sixth issue.

                                      Conclusion

      Having concluded that Father failed to preserve his sufficiency complaints,

the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s findings as to

sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), that terminating Mother’s parental rights is in Ivy’s

best interest, and that it was not an abuse of discretion to appoint the Department as

Ivy’s managing conservator and deny Mother’s motion for mistrial, we affirm the

trial court’s Order of Termination.

      AFFIRMED.


                                                        W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                             Chief Justice

Submitted on March 23, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 30, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.




                                          79