Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 28, 2002

AFFIRMED

Virginia Salas appeals the trial court's decree terminating her parental rights to her two children, O.Z. and J.P. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

On November 3, 2000, following an investigation of domestic abuse in their home, O.Z. and J.P. were removed to the custody of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS). The removal was precipitated by a fight between the children's mother, Virginia Salas, and her companion, a Ms. Melo. Upon questioning by the case worker, Salas admitted that she had cut herself on the arm with a knife out of anger over the fight and that Ms. Melo had broken the windows in the house. TDPRS had received numerous prior referrals on the children, five of which were validated for abuse of the children. The latest incident occurred just sixty days after Salas completed an eight month family preservation program by TDPRS.

The State filed its Amended Petition for termination of parental rights on November 22, 2000, and a bench trial was conducted on August 30 and 31, 2001. Following extensive testimony, the trial court concluded that grounds exist for termination of Salas's parental rights. The trial court also concluded termination is in the best interest of the children. Salas does not challenge the trial court's finding of grounds for termination, but argues the evidence is factually insufficient to support the finding that termination is in the best interest of the children.

Standard of Review

Termination of parental rights is a drastic remedy, involving fundamental constitutional rights. In re G. M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980). However, "[w]hile parental rights are of constitutional magnitude, they are not absolute." In the Interest of C. H., No. 00-0552, 2001 WL 1903109, at *9 (Tex. 2002). "[I]t is essential that the emotional and physical interests of the child not be sacrificed merely to preserve [the parental] right." Id. Accordingly, we review termination findings under a clear and convincing standard. Id. at *8. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the factfinder's conclusions, we look to see if the evidence "is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State's allegations." Id.

Discussion

In this case, there is testimony of Salas's long standing problems with alcohol and drug abuse. Salas has convictions for manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance and injury to a child, and several additional arrests for disorderly conduct and misdemeanor assault. Case workers, counselors, and Salas's probation officer testified that Salas was initially doing well on her programs but approximately a month before the final hearing, she missed several sessions of her family counseling and her individual counseling. She did not complete her Family Service Plan, her parenting classes, or her out-patient drug treatment. Salas's counselor was unable to verify that Salas was still attending her AA or NA meetings. Salas, who has been diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder and depression, stopped taking her prescribed medication. Salas blamed her failure to attend meetings on a lack of money for a bus pass; however, other testimony suggests lack of money was not the true reason for Salas's failure to complete her programs.

Both children had been physically injured in the past. O.Z. reported sexual abuse by a visitor in the home and both children acted out in inappropriate sexual behaviors. Given the family's eight year history of repeated referrals to TDPRS, Salas's involvement in violent altercations, and Salas's apparent inability to conform her behavior over an extended period of time, the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination is in the best interest of the children.

Conclusion

Because the evidence is such that the trial court could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Salas's parental rights is in the best interest of the children, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Paul W. Green, Justice

Do Not Publish