Endangerment and Substance Abuse: 14th Court Affirms Termination of Mother’s Rights after DWI with Child

In the Interest of E.J.S., a child, 14-25-00700-CV, February 12, 2026.

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

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights following a harrowing incident involving a DWI with her three-year-old child in the vehicle. The court held that the mother’s history of substance abuse, coupled with two prior terminations and a failure to maintain sobriety during the pendency of the suit, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s predicate findings under Texas Family Code §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O), and (P).

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law practitioner, this case serves as a stark reminder of the “pattern of conduct” weight given to substance abuse and prior CPS history in termination proceedings. It highlights that while a single act can occasionally suffice for endangerment findings, the appellate court will heavily weigh a parent’s inability to comply with a service plan—specifically the failure to maintain sobriety during the de novo period of the case—as a primary justification for affirming the “best interest” and “endangerment” prongs of a termination order.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department of Family and Protective Services sought removal of three-year-old “Erik” following a two-vehicle collision in April 2024. Law enforcement reported that the Mother was intoxicated and attempting to flee into interstate traffic when she was detained; Erik was in the vehicle at the time of the crash. The ensuing investigation revealed a disturbing history of neglectful supervision, including allegations that Mother used tools to dig into the child’s ear and scratched at his head while under the influence of methamphetamines, cocaine, or Xanax. Furthermore, Mother’s history included two prior involuntary terminations of parental rights (2010 and 2023) and multiple DWI offenses. During the trial, evidence showed that although Mother completed some aspects of her service plan, she failed to maintain sobriety, testing positive for cocaine multiple times while the case was active.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the evidence presented at trial was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that termination was warranted under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O), and (P), and that such termination was in the child’s best interest.

Rules Applied

The court applied the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard required for the termination of parental rights. Specifically, the court looked to Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) regarding the knowing placement of a child in conditions that endanger physical or emotional well-being; Subsection (O) regarding failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan; and Subsection (P) regarding the use of controlled substances in a manner that endangers the child. For the “best interest” analysis, the court utilized the non-exhaustive Holley v. Adams factors.

Application

The appellate court’s analysis focused on the nexus between the Mother’s substance abuse and the direct endangerment of the child. In evaluating Subsection (D), the court noted that the DWI incident alone created a dangerous environment. However, the legal story was cemented by the Mother’s “chronic” inability to remain sober, evidenced by her positive cocaine tests during the suit. The court found that her failure to maintain a stable, drug-free environment—despite having been through the CPS process twice before—undermined any argument of temporary or accidental lapse. The court also noted that while Mother showed some compliance with the service plan, the failure to abstain from drugs directly triggered the requirements of Subsection (O).

Holding

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the predicate grounds, the court held that the Mother’s intoxication while driving with the child, combined with her continued drug use during the case, provided sufficient evidence of endangerment under Subsections (D) and (P).

Regarding the best interest of the child, the court held that Erik’s stability in his current foster-to-adopt placement, contrasted with the Mother’s persistent instability and substance abuse history, justified the trial court’s decision. The court reiterated that only one predicate ground is necessary to support a termination order when the best interest finding is also supported.

Practical Application

In high-stakes termination litigation, practitioners must treat the “pendency of the suit” as a critical evidentiary window. Even if a parent shows progress in parenting classes or housing, a single positive drug test during the case can effectively negate those gains in the eyes of the appellate court. Litigators should also be aware that prior terminations are not just background noise; they are frequently used by the courts to establish a “pattern of conduct” that makes future endangerment foreseeable.

Checklists

Developing the Endangerment Case (Subsections D & E)

• Secure all law enforcement records, including dashcam and bodycam footage of intoxicated arrests involving the child.
• Cross-reference prior CPS removals to establish a pattern of conduct rather than an isolated incident.
• Document “near-miss” injuries (e.g., marks on the child, tools used on the child) as evidence of neglectful supervision.

Defending or Prosecuting Subsection (O) Compliance

• Monitor the frequency and results of random drug testing throughout the duration of the case.
• Verify whether the parent provided tangible proof of income and stable housing, rather than mere verbal assertions.
• Distinguish between “substantial compliance” and “technical compliance” when a parent fails the most critical component (sobriety).

Best Interest Analysis (Holley Factors)

• Evaluate the child’s bond with the current placement vs. the biological parent.
• Document the parent’s criminal history, specifically focusing on recidivism (e.g., DWI 3rd or more).
• Assess the “emotional and physical danger” to the child if returned to an environment with a history of substance abuse.

Citation

In the Interest of E.J.S., a child, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~99cc0fdf-650b-4887-a421-79c37a5cb05f~~