Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother (“Mother”) to her son, Connor, who was born in January 2022. This action came after a lengthy history of DFPS involvement due to Mother’s substance abuse, specifically PCP use, mental health issues, criminal history, and erratic, threatening behavior. An initial proceeding concluded in April 2024, where a court named DFPS as Connor’s managing conservator but allowed Mother to retain limited rights as a possessory conservator.
A year later, DFPS filed a new petition to modify the order and terminate Mother’s rights, citing a material and substantial change in circumstances. The Department presented evidence that Mother had relapsed and tested positive for PCP again in late 2024 after completing inpatient treatment. Furthermore, she had acquired a new state-jail felony conviction for theft in April 2025 and was incarcerated at the time of the termination trial. Throughout this period, Connor, who was diagnosed with mild autism and ADHD, was being cared for by his paternal grandmother, who expressed her love for the child and her intent to adopt him.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred by considering evidence from before the 2024 conservatorship order and by terminating her rights based on a statutory ground (subsection O) that DFPS had not properly pleaded after a recent change in the law. The appellate court agreed with Mother that the finding under subsection O was erroneous because DFPS failed to update its petition to reflect the new statutory language. However, the court concluded this error was harmless.
The court upheld the termination because it was independently supported by two other statutory grounds found by the trial court: Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering environment) and (E) (endangering conduct). The court found clear and convincing evidence for these grounds, pointing to Mother’s long and documented history of PCP abuse, multiple drug- and assault-related criminal convictions, and a pattern of instability that included threatening Connor’s caregiver. This course of conduct, the court held, presented a substantial risk to the child’s physical and emotional well-being. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in Connor’s best interest, emphasizing the stability provided by his grandmother compared to Mother’s chronic instability and incarceration.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s long-term pattern of illegal drug use, criminal activity, and instability can constitute an “endangering course of conduct” sufficient to terminate parental rights, even if the parent has made some recent efforts toward sobriety.
- In a termination suit that follows a prior court order denying termination, evidence from before that prior order may be considered if the Department’s pleadings allege a material and substantial change in circumstances, even if they do not specifically cite Texas Family Code § 161.004.
- A trial court’s order terminating parental rights can be affirmed on appeal so long as there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support at least one statutory predicate ground and the best-interest finding, even if the court erred in finding other grounds.
Why It Matters
This opinion underscores the significant challenge parents face in retaining their rights amid chronic substance abuse and criminal conduct. It illustrates that while courts consider rehabilitation efforts, a documented history of relapses and dangerous behavior is weighed heavily when determining a child’s best interest and safety. The ruling reinforces that the primary focus in termination proceedings is the child’s need for a safe and stable environment, which may override a parent’s desire to maintain a relationship, particularly when their conduct continues to pose a risk.
For family law practitioners, the case also serves as a procedural reminder. While the court noted a pleading error by the Department, it ultimately found the error harmless and pointed out that Mother had failed to object at trial to the admission of evidence she later challenged on appeal. This highlights the importance of timely objections and proper pleadings in preserving issues for appellate review in parental rights termination cases.