First Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Following Persistent Drug Use and Failure to Complete Service Plan
In the Interest of M.H., a Child, 01-25-00702-CV, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decree terminating parental rights based on a record of persistent substance abuse and a complete failure to engage in a court-ordered service plan. The court determined that the mother’s repeated positive drug tests for cocaine and her lack of initiative to secure a stable environment for the child constituted legally and factually sufficient evidence to support termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), as well as the best interest of the child.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this opinion underscores the difficulty of overcoming a “Ground O” finding when a parent fails to initiate services, even if they were temporarily incapacitated by incarceration. It further illustrates the appellate court’s willingness to link a parent’s history with other children and their choice of associates (specifically, a partner with a criminal history of indecency) to the “endangerment” grounds under subsections (D) and (E). Litigators should note that the dismissal of underlying criminal charges does not necessarily mitigate the “conduct” evidence if substance abuse remains a persistent factor throughout the pendency of the termination suit.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The child, “Max,” was born in September 2023 while the mother already had six other children in the custody of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) due to allegations of abuse. Shortly after Max’s birth, DFPS received reports of neglect. The mother initially evaded the Department, refusing to disclose Max’s location before eventually meeting investigators in a parking lot. In late 2023 and early 2024, the mother tested positive for cocaine. While the case was pending, the mother was incarcerated for indecency with a child (related to her older children), a charge that was eventually dismissed in May 2025.
Upon her release from jail in April 2025, the mother failed to begin her court-ordered family service plan. She missed her initial appointments, claiming the obligation “slipped her mind.” Furthermore, while she expressed a desire to care for Max, she remained unemployed and planned to rely on her own mother—who had her own history with CPS—or move into a shelter. Crucially, the mother continued to test positive for cocaine and marijuana as late as June 2025 and maintained a relationship with a boyfriend who was also incarcerated for indecency with a child. Meanwhile, Max had been placed in a stable foster home where he was receiving necessary speech and physical therapy and bonding with his biological siblings.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether the evidence presented at trial was legally and factually sufficient to support the predicate findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O). Additionally, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the child and the appointment of DFPS as the child’s managing conservator.
Rules Applied
The court applied the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard required for the termination of parental rights. Under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1), the State must prove at least one predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest. The court looked to subsections (D) (knowingly placing or allowing the child to remain in conditions which endanger physical or emotional well-being), (E) (engaging in conduct which endangers the child), and (O) (failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan). For the best interest analysis, the court utilized the non-exhaustive Holley v. Adams factors, including the child’s desires, emotional and physical needs, parental abilities, and the stability of the proposed placements.
Application
In evaluating the legal story of this family, the court found the mother’s conduct created a trajectory of endangerment that began before Max’s birth and continued through the trial. The court emphasized that a parent’s use of narcotics and its effect on their ability to parent qualifies as endangering conduct under subsection (E). The mother’s insistence that she did not use drugs, despite multiple positive laboratory results, weakened her position.
The application of subsection (O) was straightforward: the mother admitted she had not “officially” started her services and had missed appointments due to forgetfulness. The court dismissed the idea that her incarceration served as a total excuse, noting her failure to act even after she was released. Regarding the best interest of the child, the court contrasted the mother’s lack of stable housing and employment with the foster family’s success in addressing Max’s developmental delays and providing a permanent, safe environment.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings under subsections (D), (E), and (O). The court noted that only one predicate finding is necessary to support termination when accompanied by a best interest finding, and here, the mother’s drug use and failure to comply with the service plan were well-documented.
The court further held that termination was in Max’s best interest. The court cited the mother’s inability to provide a stable home, her continued drug use, and the child’s significant progress in his current foster placement as the primary drivers for this conclusion. Consequently, the trial court’s appointment of DFPS as the managing conservator was also affirmed.
Practical Application
From a strategic standpoint, this case reinforces that “Ground O” is often the most difficult finding to overturn on appeal when the record shows a parent has done virtually nothing to comply. Practitioners representing parents must stress the urgency of the service plan immediately upon a client’s release from custody. Conversely, for Department or Intervenor counsel, this case highlights the importance of maintaining a rigorous drug-testing schedule up until the date of trial, as post-release positive tests effectively neutralize arguments regarding “rehabilitation” during incarceration.
Checklists
Overcoming Ground (O) Challenges
- Document all attempts by the parent to contact the caseworker to initiate services.
- Keep a log of transportation hurdles or scheduling conflicts that may explain missed appointments.
- Request “reasonable efforts” findings or modifications to the service plan early if the parent is incarcerated.
- Ensure the client understands that “forgetting” an appointment is legally synonymous with a refusal to perform.
Defending Against Endangerment Grounds (D & E)
- Analyze the timeline of drug tests; identify gaps or “clean” windows to argue against a “persistent” pattern.
- Separate the parent’s conduct from the conduct of their associates, unless the parent knowingly placed the child with those associates.
- In cases where criminal charges were dismissed, move to exclude or limit the prejudicial impact of the underlying allegations if they cannot be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence.
Citation
In the Interest of M.H., a Child, No. 01-25-00702-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~c448c7cd-3de8-477c-a892-944cd32941fe~~
Share this content:
