First Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Based on Chronic Neglect and Endangerment

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy, 01-25-00640-CV, February 03, 2026.

On appeal from the 313th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decree terminating a mother’s parental rights and modifying conservatorship based on a decade-long history of chronic physical neglect and substance abuse. The court held that the evidence of “abject squalor,” including rodent infestations and the absence of basic utilities, coupled with a pattern of drug use, was legally and factually sufficient to satisfy the predicate grounds of endangerment and best interest findings under the Texas Family Code.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision serves as a critical reminder for practitioners regarding the “cumulative effect” of neglect in termination proceedings. While a single referral for poor hygiene or temporary loss of utilities might not suffice for termination, the court here emphasizes that a persistent pattern of “deplorable conditions” over several years creates an endangering environment that justifies the “civil death penalty.” For litigators, this case underscores that historical Department referrals—even those that did not initially result in removal—can be leveraged to establish a continuous course of conduct under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E).

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The litigation involved a mother and her six children, with the Department’s involvement dating back to 2014. Initial referrals involved allegations of marijuana use and “deplorable” living conditions, including a home lacking a sink or bathtub. While the mother briefly achieved sobriety, the family’s situation deteriorated over the following years. By 2019 and 2020, additional referrals noted the children’s lack of hygiene, clothing smelling of urine, and significant malnourishment.

The final removal occurred in February 2022, after law enforcement discovered the children living alone in “abject squalor.” The home was infested with rats and roaches, lacked food, and had no working stove or refrigerator. Investigators found the children had not bathed in days and were living in a home with loose wiring and non-functioning plumbing. Furthermore, the mother had a documented history of testing positive for marijuana, including at the birth of one child, and was reported to have prioritized drug purchases over basic household necessities.

Issues Decided

1. The primary issues before the First Court of Appeals were:
2. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) and (P) (controlled substance use).
3. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the children.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Department and a non-parent caregiver as sole managing conservators.

Rules Applied

The court applied the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard required for the termination of parental rights. Under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), the court examined whether the parent engaged in a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being. For Section 161.001(b)(1)(P), the court looked for evidence of controlled substance use in a manner that endangered the health and safety of the children.

In evaluating the “best interest” of the children, the court utilized the non-exhaustive Holley v. Adams factors, which include the desires of the children, their current and future emotional and physical needs, parental abilities, and the stability of the proposed placement.

Application

The court’s application of the law focused heavily on the physical environment provided by the mother. The court noted that “endangerment” under subsection (E) does not require that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffer injury; rather, the environment itself can be the source of endangerment. The presence of “rats running through the home,” “loose wiring,” and the “stench of urine” provided a concrete basis for finding a dangerous physical environment.

Regarding the drug use under subsection (P), the court connected the mother’s chronic marijuana use to the neglect of the children’s basic needs. The evidence suggested that financial resources were diverted to drugs while the children remained malnourished and without utilities. The court found that this pattern of behavior, spanning nearly a decade, demonstrated a persistent endangerment that the mother failed to remediate despite multiple opportunities provided by the Department.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights to three of the children and the conservatorship orders regarding the fourth. The court held that the “extensive evidence of abject squalor” and the mother’s “chronic drug use” were sufficient to support the predicate findings under both Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (P).

The court further held that termination was in the children’s best interest, citing the mother’s inability to provide a stable home and the children’s improvement in their current placements. Each holding emphasized that the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence was entitled to deference, and the appellate record contained ample evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Practical Application

For Texas family law litigators, this case highlights the importance of the “environmental endangerment” argument. When representing the Department or an amicus, ensure that the record includes specific, sensory details—smells, sights of infestation, and lack of functional infrastructure—to build a predicate (E) case. For defense counsel, the case illustrates the danger of a “history of referrals.” Even if a client “resolves” a prior safety plan, those prior instances remain part of a “course of conduct” that can be resurrected years later to establish a pattern of neglect.

Checklists

Evidence Gathering for Endangerment (Subsection E)

• Obtain all historical CPS/Department “Investigation” and “Alternative Response” records, even if closed.
• Secure law enforcement bodycam footage or photos from the initial removal scene.
• Document the “sensory” state of the home: utilities status, presence of pests, and availability of food/water.
• Interview school officials regarding the children’s hygiene and hunger patterns over time.

Countering a “Course of Conduct” Argument

• Establish “breaks” in the timeline where the parent provided a stable environment.
• Document all successful completions of drug treatment or parenting classes, even if not part of a formal court order.
• Differentiate between “poverty” and “neglect” (e.g., lack of utilities due to financial hardship vs. diversion of funds to controlled substances).

Citation

In the Interest of J.C.D.Y. a/k/a J.Y., J.E.D.Y. a/k/a J.Y., M.M.D.Y. a/k/a M.Y., J.T.D.Y., A/K/A J.Y., Children, No. 01-25-00640-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 3, 2025, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View the Full Opinion Here

~~7e400580-4232-415d-b593-5caf37a91044~~