## Facts

- The parents, A.A. (father) and A.S. (mother), were the parents of S.H.A., born February 12, 1982.
- After the child was hospitalized for an ear infection in May 1983, a public health nurse visited the home and observed the child was dirty, crying, and eating food off a dirty floor.
- The mother missed a follow-up medical appointment; a later assessment found the child severely underweight.
- The child was hospitalized again for a burn and an ear infection and was diagnosed with nonmedical “failure to thrive,” associated with emotional deprivation and potential long-term developmental effects.
- On a physician’s recommendation, the child was placed in foster care; over the next several months, he showed significant improvement in weight and affect.
- While the child was in foster care, the parents received services including transportation and housing assistance, parenting classes, and daycare for the other children.
- The child was returned to the parents on December 4, 1983.
- On December 29, 1983, a social worker found the child with an inappropriate babysitter and an untreated cut over his eye; the child was removed again.
- The State sought termination of both parents’ rights; a jury found statutory grounds and that termination was in the child’s best interest, and the trial court rendered a termination judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient, under a clear-and-convincing standard, to support termination based on parental conduct or conditions that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
2. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient, under a clear-and-convincing standard, to support the finding that termination was in the child’s best interest.
3. How an appellate court reviews legal and factual sufficiency challenges in a parental-rights termination case governed by a clear-and-convincing burden of proof.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment terminating both parents’ rights.
- The court held the record contained clear and convincing evidence of endangerment based on the child’s condition in the home, the failure-to-thrive diagnosis, and unsafe or inadequate supervision and care.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the best-interest finding, including the child’s improvement in foster care and the parents’ inability to maintain safe and adequate care after services and reunification.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.
- Endangerment may be shown by a course of conduct or by conditions in the child’s environment that expose the child to loss or injury or jeopardize physical or emotional well-being; actual injury is not required.
- Evidence that a child suffers nonmedical failure to thrive, coupled with neglectful conditions and inadequate supervision or medical follow-through, can support an endangerment finding.
- In reviewing termination findings under a clear-and-convincing standard, the appellate court evaluates whether the evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld termination because the record supported, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents’ neglect and unsafe conditions endangered the child and that the child’s demonstrated improvement outside the home, alongside the parents’ failure to sustain safe care after services, supported the best-interest determination.


In re S.H.A., 728 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987)