In The Interest of W.G., M.G., A.G., Children, 14-25-00706-CV, February 13, 2026.
On appeal from the 315th District Court, Harris County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decree terminating a father’s parental rights following his ten-year sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court held that despite the father’s history as a primary caretaker, his long-term incarceration coupled with the failure of his proposed kinship placement to maintain sobriety provided legally and factually sufficient evidence for termination under the Texas Family Code.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision underscores the precarious position of incarcerated parents in termination proceedings, specifically regarding the viability of kinship placements. For practitioners, the case clarifies that a relative’s physical accommodations—no matter how superior—cannot overcome the taint of active substance abuse when that relative is intended to be the primary caregiver. It reinforces the “endangerment” standards under Section 161.001(b)(1), illustrating how a parent’s criminal conduct, when paired with a lack of safe alternative arrangements, creates a trajectory toward the irrevocable dissolution of parental rights.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
W.E.G., Jr. (“Father”) was the primary caretaker for his three young children until April 2023, when he was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and subsequently sentenced to ten years in prison. Following his arrest, the children remained with their mother, whose mental health and substance abuse issues led to the Department’s intervention. When the children were eventually moved to the home of their paternal grandparents, the Department conducted a home assessment. Although the physical residence was clean and spacious, the grandmother—who would serve as the primary caregiver while the grandfather worked two jobs—tested positive for cocaine via hair follicle analysis. Despite having months to rectify the situation, the grandmother failed a subsequent drug screen during the trial period. Consequently, the Department rejected the grandparents as a placement and sought termination of Father’s rights, citing his inability to provide a safe environment during his decade-long incarceration.
Issues Decided
The court addressed three primary issues:
1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the statutory grounds for termination and the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reopening evidence to allow the State to introduce specific exhibits.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Department as the children’s Sole Managing Conservator (SMC) rather than a family member.
Rules Applied
The court adhered to the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard mandated for the termination of parental rights, which requires a degree of proof that produces a firm belief or conviction in the mind of the factfinder. The appellate review applied the Holley v. Adams factors to determine the best interest of the children, focusing on the emotional and physical needs of the children and the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody. Specifically, the court looked to Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) regarding endangerment and § 161.001(b)(1)(Q) (as construed through the record) regarding the inability to care for the children due to incarceration. The appointment of a managing conservator was reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, governed by the “best interest” primary consideration of § 153.002.
Application
The court’s application of the law to the facts centered on the vacuum of care created by Father’s criminal conduct. While Father argued that his family offered a suitable placement, the legal narrative turned on the grandmother’s repeated positive drug tests for cocaine. The court reasoned that Father’s choice to engage in a violent felony resulting in a ten-year sentence effectively “placed” the children in a vulnerable position. Because the proposed “safe haven”—the grandparents’ home—was compromised by the primary caregiver’s ongoing drug use while on community supervision, the trial court was justified in finding that the Father had failed to provide a safe environment. The court emphasized that a factfinder is entitled to weigh the credibility of witnesses, and the grandmother’s denial of drug use in the face of positive hair follicle results heavily damaged the Father’s case for a kinship alternative.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Father’s ten-year sentence for a violent felony, in conjunction with the absence of a drug-free relative placement, constituted sufficient evidence of endangerment and supported the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. The court noted that a parent’s incarceration, while not a per se ground for termination, becomes a significant factor when it prevents the parent from ensuring the children are cared for in a safe environment.
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the Department as SMC. Since the grandparents were deemed unsuitable due to the grandmother’s substance abuse, and no other relatives were available, the Department was the only remaining viable conservator to ensure the children’s safety and permanency.
Finally, the court affirmed that the trial court’s procedural decisions, including the reopening of evidence, were within its discretion and did not constitute reversible error, as the evidence was central to determining the best interests of the children.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case serves as a cautionary tale regarding the “all-or-nothing” nature of kinship placements in CPS litigation. When a parent is incarcerated, the viability of their parental rights often rests entirely on the “cleanness” of their proposed alternative caregivers. Practitioners must proactively vet relatives, including ordering private hair follicle tests, before proposing them to the Department. Additionally, this case highlights that even a “primary caretaker” parent can lose their rights based on a single violent criminal act if that act results in long-term unavailability and a failure of the extended family support system.
Checklists
Vetting Kinship Placements
- Independent Discovery: Conduct private hair follicle and urine drug screens of all adults in the proposed household before the Department conducts its own.
- Criminal Background Audit: Obtain certified copies of “non-obvious” criminal records for all residents, paying close attention to drug-related community supervision.
- Caregiver Dynamics: Analyze the “working hours” of the household; if the “clean” grandparent works full-time, the “unclean” grandparent will be viewed as the primary risk.
- Consistency Check: Ensure the relatives’ statements to the Department match their testimony; discrepancies in drug use history are frequently fatal to placement.
Defending the Incarcerated Parent
- Alternative Care Plan: Present multiple placement options early in the case to avoid a “single point of failure” if one relative fails a drug test.
- Evidence of Bond: Document the parent’s pre-incarceration role as a primary caretaker to bolster the Holley factor regarding the parent-child relationship.
- Mitigate Violent Offenses: While difficult, provide context or rehabilitation evidence regarding the underlying criminal conviction to argue against the “conduct” prongs of endangerment.
Citation
In the Interest of W.G., M.G., A.G., Children, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
~~3efcf009-a10b-45ef-be82-27f57edeb2b2~~
Share this content: