Appellant Belinda Foster appeals the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her four minor children, J.D.F., S.F., B.F., J.D.F. ⁽¹⁾ On appeal she challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the trial court and argues for a heightened standard of review. Foster also contends the trial court violated the due process clause of the United States Constitution by terminating her parental rights.

The disposition of this case is governed by our recent opinion in In the Interest of M.S., No. 09-01-037 CV, 2002 WL 538089 (Tex. App.--Beaumont, April 11, 2002, no pet. h.). Challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence must be preserved. Id. at *3-4. Since they have not been preserved, we overrule issues two through seven. Because of our disposition of issues two through seven, we need not address issue one -- asking for a heightened standard of review for legal and factual sufficiency issues.

In issue eight, Foster asserts the trial court violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating her parental rights. As Foster points out, the parent-child relationship is one of constitutional magnitude. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). As we read her brief, she claims the trial court terminated her parental rights because she is a crack addict. The order terminating her parental rights set out grounds of termination from the Texas Family Code. They are set out, in pertinent part, below:

(1) She knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the children.

(2) She engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of children.

(3) She failed to comply with the provisions of the court's order necessary to obtain return of the children.

(4) She "used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child(ren), and (1) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or (2) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance";

(5) Termination is in the best interest of the children.

See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D),(E),(O),(P),(2) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Her parental rights were not terminated solely because of drug addiction.

Appellant appears to ask this court to treat drug addicted parents in termination proceedings differently from parents who have no addiction. According to Foster, the justification warranting special treatment is that addiction is a "chronic relapsing disease." We decline to accord such special treatment to addicts. Issue eight is overruled. The order terminating the parental rights of Belinda Foster to the minor children, J.D.F., S.F., B.F., and J.D.F. is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_______________________________

DAVID B. GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on April 25, 2002

Opinion Delivered May 9, 2002

Do Not Publish

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

I concur in the result. However, I differ with the majority on the requirement for the preservation of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence (issues two through seven). The majority follows our recent opinion in In the interest of M.S., No. 09-01-037 CV, 2002 WL 538089 (Tex. App.--Beaumont, April 11, 2002, no pet. h.)(not yet released for publication), and holds that legal and factual sufficiency may not be raised unless properly preserved. I would follow the Tenth Court of Appeals' rationale in In the Interest of A.P., 42 S.W.3d 248, 254-56 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, pet. filed); see also In the Interest of A.V., 57 S.W.3d 51, 58 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, pet. filed); In the Interest of S.R.M., 601 S.W.2d 766, 769-70 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1980, no writ).

Because the majority does not reach issue one, nor do I.

Justice

Concurrence Delivered

May 9, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. The parental rights of the father of three of the children, J.D.F., S.F., and B.F., and the parental rights of the father of another child, J.D.F., were also terminated. Since the fathers did not answer, did not appear in court, and have not appealed to this court, that part of the termination order has become final.