Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the
citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated —
it is what the later court actually wrote.
In the Interest of P.H.S. and E.K.S., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-24
…ermining whether a parent is willing and able to provide the child with a safe environment, we consider the factors set forth in section 263.307(b) of the Texas Family Code. 4 See id. § 263.307(b). We also consider the Holley factors. 5 See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors are not exhaustive. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). “The absence of evidence about some of these considerations would not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction or belief that termination is in the child’s best interest, particularly if the evidence were undisputed tha…
In the Interest of A.D., S.R., and K.A., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-18
…best interest determination does not restrict the proof to any specific factor or factors. In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). However, courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not limited to: (1) the desires of the children; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist…
In the Interest of J.C.B.G., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-17
…d 239, 249 n.9 (Tex. 2013). - 13 - 04-25-00675-CV in determining a child’s best interest. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). Neither the statutory factors nor the Holley factors are exhaustive, and “[e]vidence of a single factor may be sufficient for a factfinder to form a reasonable belief or conviction that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In re J.B.-F., No. 04-18-00181-CV, 2018 WL 3551208, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 25…
In the Interest of I.G., a Child v. the State of Texas2026-06-16
…est to preserve the parent-child relationship. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). In assessing whether termination is in a child’s best interest, the courts are guided by the non-exclusive list of factors in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). 4 “[T]he State need not prove all of the factors as a condition precedent to parental termination, ‘particularly if the evidence were undisputed that the parental relationship endangered the safety of the child.’” In re C.T.E., 95 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (quoting In re C.H., 8…
In the Interest of A.A. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services2026-06-11
…st of the child; (6) the stability the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors are not exhaustive, and evidence is not required on each factor to support a finding that terminating a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest. Id. Moreover, evidence supporting termination under one of the grounds listed in section 161.001(b)(1) can also be considered in support of a finding tha…
In the Interest of M.S., M.J.S., and N.E.S., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-10
…-8- 04-25-00782-CV See id. § 263.307(b). We also consider the Holley factors. 6 See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors are not exhaustive. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). “The absence of evidence about some of these considerations would not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction or belief that termination is in the child’s best interest, particularly if the evidence were undisputed tha…
In the Interest of P.A., Jr., L.L.-A., and S.A., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-05
…em, and had also cared for their older siblings before. As a result, the trial court could have formed a firm belief 4 Father does not challenge the trial court’s best-interest findings. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2). 5 Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976). 14 or conviction that this factor weighed in favor of terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. See In re K.O., 488 S.W.3d 829, 840 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). As for the next three factors, we consider “that a parent is unable to provide ad…
In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S., Children2026-06-05
…e home or proposed placement; (8) the parent’s acts or omissions that may indicate the existing parent–child relationship is improper; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. J.W., 645 S.W.3d at 746 (citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976)). “[E]vidence that a parent will knowingly expose [a] child to a dangerous environment in the future” is “relevant to a best-interest determination.” Id. at 749. In my view, the third Holley factor weighs heavily in favor of termination. As Mother herself recognized, Father’s behavior presented a very real risk of ph…
In the Interest of B.A. and B.A., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28; see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1), (2). We also consider the 25 evidence in light of factors, set out in Holley v. Adams, that the factfinder may apply in its best-interest determination. 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted); see E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249 (stating that in reviewing a best-interest finding, “we consider, among other evidence, the Holley factors” (footnote omitted)); E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d at 807. These factors are not exhaustive, and some listed factors may not apply to some cases. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. Furt…
In the Interest of A.M., J.M., and K.W., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…ions of the mother that indicate an improper parent–child relationship and the excuses given for those acts or omissions; (4) the children’s emotional and physical needs; and (5) the overall stability—or instability—of the mother’s home.20 Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976); E.A., 2025 WL 1085189, at *11. 2. Evidence of Best Interest Mother argues that termination was not in the children’s best interest because she had taken steps to protect her children and to improve her parental abilities. See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72 (listing best interest factors including…
In the Interest of J.J. III and D.R.L.J., Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-03
The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
In the Interest of P.M.B., J.Q.B., M.B. AKA Baby Girl B., K.L.B. AKA K.L.B., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services2026-05-28
…y and the stability of the proposed placement; (6) the parent’s acts or omissions that may suggest the existing parent-child relationship is improper; and (7) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. Id. (the “Holley factors,” citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976)). We may also consider the statutory factors set forth in Family Code section 263.307. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307; In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 631 n.29. Proof of each of these considerations is not a condition precedent to termination. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. The analysis may include direct and circumstantial evide…
In the Interest of R.G., III, a Child v. the State of Texas2026-05-21
…or proposed placement, • the parent’s acts or omissions that may indicate that the existing parent–child relationship is not a proper one, and • the parent’s excuse, if any, for the acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976); see E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249. These factors do not form an exhaustive list, and some factors may not apply to some cases. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27. Furthermore, undisputed evidence of just one factor may suffice in a particular case to support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. Id. On the other h…
In the Interest of Z.S., Z.S., M.S. III, Children v. the State of Texas2026-05-21
…y seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) acts or omissions of the parent that may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parents’ acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors are non-exclusive, and the best interest finding does not require proof of any unique set of factors. See In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436, 447 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). Stability and permanence are paramount in the upbringing of children. In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 120 (Tex. App.—H…
In the Interest of D.W., A.W., B.S.D, and T.G., Children v. the State of Texas2026-05-21
…the proof to any specific factor or factors. In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 3 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). However, courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not limited to: (1) the desires of the children; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist…
In the Interest of G.S.S. and S.D.S., Children v. the State of Texas2026-05-14
…he proof to any specific factor or factors. In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). However, courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley 3 factors to shape their analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not limited to: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these in…
In the Interest of J.E.F. and J.J.F., Children v. the State of Texas2026-05-13
…ts to consider regarding a parent’s willingness and ability to provide a child with a safe environment, and the Texas Supreme Court has provided a similar list of factors 4 to determine a child’s best interest. TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.307(b); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). A best interest finding does not require proof of any particular factors. In re G.C.D., No. 04-14-00769-CV, 2015 WL 1938435, at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). Neither the statutory factors nor the Holley factors are exhaustive, and “[e]vidence of a single factor may be sufficient…
In the Interest of K.M.N., P.N. III, E.J.N., I.A.N., B.L.N., C.A.N., S.V.N., L.F.N., and S.N., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Service2026-05-07
…ency seeking custody; (7) stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not appropriate; and (9) any excuse for the parent’s acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). 7 2. Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding The three youngest children, Stella, Lucy, and Sara, were too young at trial to express a desire about returning to Mother, but the bonds they have formed, and the positive progress they…
Lauren Loria v. Derek Edward Loria2026-05-07
…ly 2.5 hours away.” But the trial court’s findings of fact affirmatively demonstrate that it considered the children’s best interests based on the relevant factors listed in Family Code section 153.001(a) and applicable factors discussed in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). Specifically, the trial court found: a. Father would best meet the children’s physical, psychological, and emotional needs. b. The parties are unable to make joint decisions for the children, which affects their well-being. The provisions in the Final Decree allowing for independent…
In the Interest of L.D.M.W. v. the State of Texas2026-05-07
…seeking custody; (7) stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not proper; and (9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.307(b). No particular Holley factor is controlling, and evidence of one factor may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in a child’s best interest. In re A.P., 184 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2006, no pet.). The best interest determination may rely on direct or…
In the Interest of A.C. and N.C., Children v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of the parent- child relationship was in the children’s best interest. In Holley v. Adams, the Supreme Court of Texas promulgated a non-exhaustive list of factors for assessing a child’s best interests, 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976). Evidence probative of the termination grounds may also be probative of best interest. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631–32 (Tex. 2018). The Department need not present evidence of each Holley factor; in some circumstances, evidence of only one may be sufficient. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). As he…
In the Interest of I.S. v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…lity 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 wit…
In the Interest of D.J., a Child v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…ome or proposed placement; (H) the [parent’s] acts or omissions . . . indicat[ing] that the existing parent– child relationship is not a proper one; and (I) any excuse for the [parent’s] acts or omissions. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted); see E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d at 249 (stating that in reviewing a best-interest finding, “we consider, 32 among other evidence, the Holley factors” (footnote omitted)); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 807 (Tex. 2012). These factors are not exhaustive, and some l…
In the Interest of E.T., E.T., E.T., E.D., Children v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…best interest determination does not restrict the proof to any specific factor or factors. In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). However, courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not limited to: (1) the desires of the children; 3 (2) the emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeki…
In the Interest of C.F., a Child v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…best interest determination does not restrict the proof to any specific factor or factors. In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). However, courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These include, but are not limited to: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional 3 and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custod…
In the Interest of A.M., a Child v. the State of Texas2026-04-30
…In her sole issue, Mother argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that her parental rights termination is in A.M.’s best interests. A. Applicable Law “In Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), we gave a nonexhaustive list of factors that should be considered when determining the best interest of a child.” In re A.A., 670 S.W.3d 520, 534 n.57 (Tex. 2023) (emphasis added). The listed factors are: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the…