Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy, 01-25-00940-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 312th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights, holding that her failure to challenge every predicate ground found by the trial court rendered the unchallenged findings binding on appeal. Furthermore, the court determined that the mother’s extensive history of chronic substance abuse and untreated mental health crises provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this case serves as a stark reminder of the “all-or-nothing” requirement when appealing termination decrees involving multiple predicate grounds. Beyond the procedural pitfalls, the opinion underscores the significant evidentiary weight appellate courts accord to long-term patterns of mental instability and drug relapse, even when a parent has shown periods of temporary improvement or service compliance. It also highlights the 2025 legislative amendments to Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1), specifically the repeal of Subsection (O) and the subsequent re-lettering of Subsection (P), which requires careful attention to the effective date of the underlying suit.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department of Family and Protective Services’ involvement with the Mother spanned nearly two decades, beginning with reports of neglectful supervision and homicidal ideations in 2007. Between 2013 and 2023, the Mother was the subject of numerous referrals involving the physical abuse of her child Zane and the use of methamphetamines and heroin. Although the children were briefly returned to her care in 2017 following a period of sobriety, the Mother subsequently relapsed. In 2018, she overdosed on prescription medication in a suicide attempt while the children were present in the home. The final removal occurred in December 2023, following the Mother’s involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. At trial, the evidence established a cycle of “in and out” mental health hospitalizations and daily heroin use, which the Mother admitted included injecting and snorting the drug. The trial court ultimately terminated her rights to three children: Zane, Gabriel, and Violet.
Issues Decided
- Waiver of Predicate Grounds: Whether the Mother’s failure to challenge findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P) necessitated an affirmance of the predicate acts prong.
- Best Interest Sufficiency: Whether the evidence regarding the Mother’s drug use and mental health was sufficient to support the best interest finding under the Holley factors.
- Conservatorship: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Department as the sole managing conservator.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b), requiring clear and convincing evidence of at least one predicate ground and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. Procedurally, the court followed the well-settled rule that when a decree is based on multiple predicate grounds, an appellant must challenge every ground found by the trial court; failure to do so results in the appellate court affirming the decree based on any unchallenged ground. The court also utilized the Holley v. Adams factors to evaluate the children’s best interests, focusing on the parental abilities of the individual, the emotional and physical needs of the children, and the stability of the home.
Application
The court’s analysis began with a procedural threshold: because the Mother only briefed a challenge to Subsection (N) (constructive abandonment), she left the findings under Subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) undisturbed. Consequently, the court held that these unchallenged findings were sufficient to support the first prong of the termination statute without further review. Moving to the best interest analysis, the court navigated through the Mother’s history of “neglectful supervision” and “untreated mental illness.” The court noted that while the Mother had participated in some services, her history of overdosing while the children were present and her admitted daily heroin use created an environment of significant physical and emotional danger. The court weighed these factors against the children’s need for permanence and the Department’s evidence of the children’s stability in their current placements, finding the evidence more than sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard.
Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination decrees. The court held that the Mother’s failure to contest all predicate findings was fatal to her challenge of the predicate acts prong.
Regarding the best interest of the children, the court held that the Mother’s chronic drug use, coupled with her recurring mental health crises and the resulting neglect of the children, provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for the trial court’s determination. The court further held that because termination was proper, the appointment of the Department as managing conservator was not an abuse of discretion.
Practical Application
This opinion illustrates the necessity of a “scattergun” approach in appellate briefing for termination cases—counsel must attack every predicate ground found in the decree or risk a summary affirmance on the first prong. From a trial perspective, this case emphasizes that a parent’s “compliance” with a service plan (Subsection O) may be moot if the Department successfully proves endangerment (Subsections D or E) based on the parent’s underlying history. Litigators should focus on the Holley factors early, documenting not just the parent’s failures, but the specific, tangible improvements in the children’s lives once removed from the unstable environment.
Checklists
Preservation and Briefing
- Audit the Decree: Identify every specific subsection of 161.001(b)(1) cited by the trial court.
- Brief Every Ground: Ensure the appellate brief contains a distinct argument for each predicate ground; even if one ground seems weak, it must be challenged to avoid waiver.
- Statutory Version Check: Confirm whether the case is governed by the pre- or post-September 2025 version of Section 161.001(b)(1) to correctly cite Subsections (O) and (P).
Best Interest Evidence Gathering
- Substance Abuse History: Collect medical records and previous Department referrals to establish a “pattern of conduct” rather than isolated incidents.
- Mental Health Documentation: Secure records of involuntary commitments or suicidal ideations, particularly those occurring when the children were in the parent’s care.
- Stability Contrast: Contrast the parent’s “in and out” history with the stability and permanence offered by the current foster or kinship placement.
Citation
In the Interest of G.M.D. & V.D. and In the Interest of Z.J.M., __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
~~902aa2e8-f828-4790-82d0-72476cca6067~~
Share this content: