Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After Mother gave birth to Anna in March 2025, both tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. Anna spent about a month in neonatal intensive care with withdrawal symptoms and other health problems requiring specialized care. The Department of Family and Protective Services took custody upon her discharge and placed her in foster care.
During the case, neither parent submitted to required drug testing. Mother participated in some services and regularly visited Anna, but she and a second child again tested positive for methamphetamine when that child was born. Father visited Anna once, did not complete most required services, and was arrested repeatedly for drug-possession and theft-related offenses. The trial court extended the statutory dismissal date after Mother entered inpatient treatment and Father requested treatment, but each parent left rehabilitation after only a few days. A jury found statutory grounds for termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) as to both parents, additional grounds as to each parent, and that termination was in Anna’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court timely extended the dismissal deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding extraordinary circumstances. Mother’s efforts to obtain inpatient treatment after the removal of her second child, together with Father’s expressed interest in treatment, permitted the trial court to retain the case even though those efforts came late.
The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings that both parents endangered Anna under Subsections (D) and (E). Mother’s drug use during pregnancy, continued drug-related evidence, missed testing, and failure to complete treatment supported the findings against her. Father’s missed drug tests, repeated arrests, criminal history, and evidence permitting the jury to reject his claimed ignorance of Mother’s prenatal drug use supported the findings against him. Because one statutory ground suffices, the court did not address the additional grounds for termination. Mother waived her jury-charge complaints by expressly stating that she had no objection at trial; raising them later in a motion for new trial was untimely.
Key Takeaways
- A timely Family Code Section 263.401 extension may rest on extraordinary circumstances beyond the circumstance in which Subsection (b-3) mandates an extension.
- Prenatal drug exposure, missed drug tests, continued drug-related conduct, and a pattern of criminal activity can support endangerment findings by clear and convincing evidence.
- A parent must timely and specifically object to alleged jury-charge defects; raising them for the first time in a motion for new trial does not preserve error.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the discretion Texas trial courts retain when deciding whether late but potentially meaningful treatment efforts justify extending a parental-termination case beyond the ordinary one-year deadline. It also confirms that appellate review of endangerment findings encompasses a parent’s conduct before and after birth, credibility determinations, missed testing, and surrounding evidence of drug use and criminality.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores that Subsection (D) and (E) findings receive appellate scrutiny because of their potential consequences in future termination proceedings, while also emphasizing that ordinary preservation rules continue to govern jury-charge complaints in parental-rights cases.