in the Interest of C. H., a Minor Child

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ) ) No. 08-98-00183-CV ) ) Appeal from the IN THE INTEREST OF C.H.,                              ) D.O.B. 12/14/96, ) 65th District Court ) ) of El Paso County, Texas ) ) (TC# 95-5636) ) MEMORANDUM  OPINION ON REMAND Susan H. and Robert G. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights. They challenged the jury findings as legally and factually insufficient. We reversed and remanded for a new trial, In the Interest of C.H., 25 S.W.3d 38 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2000), rev=d, 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002). The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed a petitioned for review and the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for our reconsideration. At some point during the pendency of the petition for review, Susan H. relinquished her parental rights, accordingly she is no longer a party to the appeal. The only issue that remains is whether the evidence is factual sufficient to support the finding that the termination of the parental rights of Robert G. is in the best interest of the child. We find that there is factual sufficient evidence and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The appellate standard for reviewing termination findings is whether the evidence is such that a fact finder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State=s allegations. In the Interest of C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002). We first note that the underpinnings of our original opinion were based primarily on relationship of evidence relating to the mother, Susan G., which presented a considerably more complex set of facts. Her relinquishment of parental rights following our opinion dramatically changes the balance of evidence that remained. We find that the record contains evidence of specific acts, inaction, and a pattern of conduct that Robert G. is incapable of child-rearing and that a reasonable jury could form a firm conviction or belief from all the evidence that termination would be in C.H.=s best interest. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. March 6, 2003 DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice Before Panel No. 1 Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ