Jason Gasca’s daughter was removed from his custody during dependency proceedings and later returned to him for a period. When the child was again removed, the Department sought termination of Gasca’s parental rights. The juvenile court found that Gasca had not completed a case plan and that the child would likely face instability, domestic violence, and drug use if returned to him. The Court of Appeals reversed. Termination required clear and convincing evidence, and the appellate court found that Gasca had not been given a realistic opportunity to complete requirements that demanded months of stable housing and income. The record also did not support several findings: the case manager had not visited his home, the child had previously been returned to his care, and the Department offered no competent evidence of current drug use or exposure to domestic violence involving the child. Because the statutory grounds were not proven by the required standard, the court reversed termination and did not reach the separate best-interest issue.