non-exhaustive Holley factors in Texas

2024In determining a child’s best interest, a trial court should consider the factors set out in Texas Family Code section 263.307 and the non-exhaustive Holley factors. 4 See Holley v. Adams, 4 Section 263.307(b)’s factors include: the child’s age and physical and mental vulnerabilities; the frequency and nature of out-of-home placements; the magnitude, frequency, and circumstances of the harm to the child; whether the child has been the victim of repeated harm after intervention by the department; whether the child is fearful of returning to -5- 04-23-00993-CV 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976)

2023But courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis. 2 Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976).

2021When we consider the evidence in light of the applicable non-exhaustive Holley factors: the child’s emotional and physical needs, emotional or physical dangers posed to the child, the parenting skills of those seeking custody, programs available to assist those individuals 21 to promote the child’s best interest, plans for the child’s future, the stability of the proposed placements, and the parent’s conduct that might show an inappropriate parent-child relationship and any excuses for such conduct, see C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 , we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the district

2021See In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet denied) (citing, inter alia, In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002)); see also In re T.C., No. 07-18-00080-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6769 , at *13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 23, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that a parent who opts to forgo a challenge to predicate ground findings tacitly concedes that sufficient evidence supports those findings).1 In determining the best interest of a child, courts apply the non-exhaustive Holley factors in performing their analysis.

2024See A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 362 ; see also TEX.

2019See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 237 n.1; In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). - 10 - 04-18-00099-CV Our best-interest analysis is guided by consideration of the non-exhaustive Holley factors.

2023In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 , 266 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied). 2 But courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis.

2022In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 , 266 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied). 2 But courts may use the non-exhaustive Holley factors to shape their analysis.

2019See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266 .

2019We “must give due consideration to evidence the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266 . -8- 04-19-00228-CV Factors Relevant to Best Interest In evaluating the children’s best interest, courts consider the non-exhaustive Holley factors. 5 In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 , 249 n.9 (Tex. 2013); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976).

2021See In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet denied) (citing, inter alia, In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002)); see also In re T.C., No. 07-18-00080-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6769 , at *13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 23, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that a parent who opts to forgo a challenge to predicate ground findings tacitly concedes that sufficient evidence supports those findings).1 In determining the best interest of a child, courts apply the non-exhaustive Holley factors in performing their analysis.

2021See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976); see also Zeifman, 4 212 S.W.3d at 595 (applying Holley factors to determine best interest in conservatorship proceeding).

2019See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 237 n.1; In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). - 10 - 04-18-00099-CV Our best-interest analysis is guided by consideration of the non-exhaustive Holley factors.

2016Consistent with thé use of the permissive word “may,” Texas courts “have held that a trial court does not err in failing to separately consider the Holley factors when presented with an affidavit of relinquishment;” In re K.D., 471 S.W.3d at 162 (citing In re A.G.C., 279 S.W.3d 441, 452 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet,); Ivy, 783 S.W.2d at 833 ).

2014Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976); In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied).