Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services began investigating after E.J.’s umbilical-cord blood tested positive for cannabinoids. When the child was removed at approximately two months old, the mother admitted using methamphetamine after giving birth and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine; E.J. tested positive for a marijuana metabolite and methamphetamine. The Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship and placed E.J. with foster parents after the mother could not identify an appropriate relative or fictive-kin placement.
The mother completed portions of her court-ordered service plan and entered substance-abuse treatment twice, but she also missed drug tests, later tested positive for methamphetamine, changed residences repeatedly, attended fewer than half of her scheduled visits, and at one point stopped communicating with the Department for several months. By trial, she had recently tested negative and was participating in a Christian sober-living program, but she lacked verified stable employment and an established long-term home for E.J. The child, meanwhile, had lived with the foster family for approximately twenty months, was bonded to them, and was doing well in their care.
After a bench trial, the district court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and found that termination was in E.J.’s best interest. The mother did not challenge the predicate endangerment findings on appeal; she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding and the finding that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts but a continuing danger still prevented E.J.’s return.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the Holley best-interest factors, it held that legally and factually sufficient evidence permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that termination served E.J.’s best interest. The court relied on the mother’s methamphetamine use during and after the child’s removal, missed drug tests, housing and employment instability, inconsistent visitation, and periods of disengagement, as well as the child’s bond with a foster family offering a safe and stable adoptive home.
The court acknowledged the mother’s recent sobriety, counseling, and substantial completion of her service plan but held that short-term improvement did not conclusively overcome her longer history of substance abuse and instability. The trial court was entitled to assess credibility, infer future conduct from past conduct, and conclude that the mother’s circumstances and plans remained insufficiently stable.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the findings required by Section 161.001(f). The Department made reasonable efforts by creating and implementing a service plan, providing transportation for drug testing, arranging evaluations and counseling referrals, coordinating visitation, seeking family-placement options, and repeatedly attempting to communicate with the mother. Despite those efforts, her continued drug use, missed testing, repeated moves, unstable employment and housing, and five-month lapse in communication and visitation supported the finding that a continuing danger prevented E.J.’s return.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s recent sobriety and service-plan compliance do not necessarily outweigh a longer pattern of drug use, instability, missed testing, and inconsistent contact with the child.
- Implementing a family service plan and assisting with testing, counseling, visitation, communication, and placement options can constitute reasonable reunification efforts under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(f).
- Missed drug tests and unresolved housing, employment, and substance-abuse concerns may support a finding that continuing danger prevents reunification, even when the parent has recently tested negative.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Texas appellate courts evaluate the relatively new requirements in Section 161.001(f), focusing both on the Department’s concrete reunification efforts and on whether danger remained as trial approached. The governing standard requires reasonable efforts, not ideal ones, and evaluates those efforts alongside the parent’s own engagement.
It also reinforces that a best-interest determination is child-centered and may rest on the full history of the case. Trial courts need not treat recent improvement as dispositive when the record also shows recurring drug use, instability, limited visitation, and a child’s established bond with a safe, permanent placement.