Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved when A.L.O., called “Amy” in the opinion, was born positive for methamphetamine. The child experienced feeding difficulties, withdrawals, and seizures, received treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit, and was then placed in a foster-to-adopt home. Her mother acknowledged using methamphetamine during the pregnancy.
During the case, Mother completed parenting and substance-abuse programs, attended counseling, obtained employment, regularly visited Amy, and demonstrated appropriate parenting during supervised visits. But she did not obtain housing the Department considered safe and stable, returned to living with alleged father E.O., and admitted at trial that she was not then prepared to take Amy home. A Department witness testified that E.O. admitted daily drug use, had previously said that he and Mother used methamphetamine together, and did not submit to drug testing. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and found termination in Amy’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the endangerment findings under subsections (D) and (E). The court relied on Mother’s methamphetamine use during pregnancy and the resulting harm surrounding Amy’s birth, Mother’s unexplained positive drug test during the case, her decision to live with E.O. despite evidence of his drug use and nonparticipation in services, and evidence that her residence remained unsafe and unstable. The court rejected the argument that termination rested merely on poverty.
The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the best-interest finding. Although Amy was bonded with Mother and Mother had completed most services, the court emphasized Amy’s need for permanence, her progress and attachment in the foster-to-adopt placement, Mother’s housing instability, her continued relationship with E.O., and her indefinite plan for becoming able to care for Amy. Viewing the entire record under the heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, the court concluded that the evidence favoring Mother was not so significant as to prevent the trial court’s finding.
Key Takeaways
- Drug use throughout pregnancy that exposes a newborn to methamphetamine and related medical problems can support findings of endangerment under subsections (D) and (E).
- A parent’s completion of services and appropriate visitation do not preclude termination when evidence shows continuing instability, unsafe housing, and association with a person whose conduct poses risks to the child.
- Poverty alone cannot support termination, but the court distinguished economic disadvantage from evidence of persistent housing instability, drug-related risks, and the absence of a concrete reunification plan.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Texas appellate courts review the full course of parental conduct rather than treating service-plan completion as dispositive. Evidence of rehabilitation remains important, but it may be outweighed by unresolved conditions affecting the child’s safety and prospects for a stable home.
The opinion also draws a legally significant line between terminating rights because a parent lacks money and considering whether the parent has established a safe, stable environment within a reasonable time. Here, the court found the judgment rested on the broader endangerment and permanency evidence, not Mother’s financial hardship alone.