Reported / Citable
Background
The trial court terminated the parental rights of J.S.R. (“Father”) and M.A.C. (“Mother”) to their son, born in 2023, and daughter, born in 2024. Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting three statutory grounds for termination—endangerment by conduct, endangering use of controlled substances, and constructive abandonment—as well as the best-interest finding.
Father also challenged the designation of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as the children’s permanent managing conservator, arguing that the designation rested on an invalid termination order. The appellate majority rejected the parents’ challenges and affirmed. Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez agreed that Mother’s termination should be affirmed but dissented from the judgment as to Father.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. It also left intact the Department’s designation as the children’s permanent managing conservator.
In partial dissent, Chief Justice Martinez would have held the evidence legally insufficient as to Father. She concluded that the Department failed to connect Father’s substance use and missed drug tests to an impaired ability to parent, failed to prove that he knowingly used drugs with Mother during her pregnancy, and failed to establish constructive abandonment given his attendance at nineteen of thirty-one visits and his evidence of transportation problems. She would have reversed Father’s termination and remanded for reconsideration of conservatorship under Texas Family Code Section 161.205.
Key Takeaways
- The court affirmed the termination of both parents’ rights and the Department’s permanent managing conservatorship.
- The partial dissent maintained that illegal drug use, diagnoses, positive tests, and missed tests did not establish statutory endangerment without evidence connecting them to Father’s ability to parent.
- The dissent also concluded that the Department did not prove constructive abandonment or justify retaining the conservatorship ruling after reversing Father’s termination.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves a complete termination judgment in place despite a dissent that viewed the evidence against Father as legally insufficient under recent Texas Supreme Court precedent requiring more than illegal drug use alone. The disagreement highlights the evidentiary connection the Department must establish between parental substance use and a concrete risk to parenting ability.
The dissent also underscores that missed visitation does not automatically establish constructive abandonment when the parent maintained substantial contact and offered an unrebutted transportation-based explanation for absences.