Texas Appellate Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Based on Substance Abuse and Endangerment Findings

In the Interest of T.B., K.B., T.B., K.B., Children, 11-25-00248-CV, February 12, 2026.

On appeal from the 326th District Court of Taylor County

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights, holding that a parent’s history of chronic substance abuse and criminal drug activity provides legally and factually sufficient evidence to satisfy the best-interest prong of the Texas Family Code. The court emphasized that a factfinder may reasonably infer future endangerment from a parent’s past conduct, particularly when that conduct includes drug use during pregnancy and repeated probation violations.

Relevance to Family Law

For practitioners involved in high-stakes custody and termination litigation, this opinion reinforces the formidable weight given to “past conduct” as a predictor of future parental performance. Even where a parent might show recent cooperation with Family Based Safety Services (FBSS), a deep-seated history of addiction and criminal instability can be sufficient to meet the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. This case serves as a reminder that the same evidence used to prove statutory endangerment grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1) often serves as the primary evidentiary anchor for the best-interest analysis under Section 161.001(b)(2).

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department of Family and Protective Services intervened following the birth of the parents’ sixth child, K.B.2, in April 2022. The subsequent investigation revealed a pervasive history of substance abuse: the mother admitted to using methamphetamine and cocaine since age fourteen, including use during her pregnancy with the child at issue. The father’s history was equally troubling, involving daily cocaine use and a 2019 conviction for possession of THC. Despite being placed on community supervision, the father continued to possess methamphetamine and tested positive for a cocktail of narcotics including cocaine, opiates, and benzodiazepines. By August 2022, the father’s probation was revoked, leading to his incarceration. The children were eventually placed in the Department’s care, leading to the trial court’s order of termination based on endangerment and best-interest findings.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the evidence presented at trial was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of the parental rights of both the mother and the father was in the children’s best interest pursuant to Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

The court applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(b). In reviewing the “best interest” finding, the court utilized the non-exhaustive Holley v. Adams factors, which include the children’s needs, emotional and physical dangers, parental abilities, and the stability of the home. The court also relied on the principle that the same evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination (specifically endangerment under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)) can be probative of the children’s best interest. Finally, the court applied the standard of review for legal and factual sufficiency set forth in In re J.W. and In re A.C., requiring deference to the factfinder’s role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Application

The court’s analysis focused on the nexus between the parents’ chronic drug use and the prospective safety of the children. The court applied the Holley factors by highlighting that the parents’ past conduct—specifically the mother’s drug use during pregnancy and the father’s criminal recidivism while on probation—indicated a recurring pattern of endangerment. The court noted that a factfinder is permitted to infer that a parent’s past inability to meet a child’s physical and emotional needs suggests a similar inability in the future.

The narrative developed by the court suggests that the parents’ long-term addiction outweighed any recent efforts at rehabilitation. Because the mother admitted to exposing her unborn child to methamphetamine and the father demonstrated a persistent commitment to the drug trade and consumption even under the threat of incarceration, the trial court was justified in forming a “firm belief or conviction” that the parental bond was detrimental to the children. The court underscored that the Department is not required to prove every Holley factor; rather, a strong showing in even one or two factors—such as physical danger or parental omissions—can suffice.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the termination. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, the court determined that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief that termination was in the children’s best interest given the undisputed evidence of drug-related endangerment and the father’s incarceration.

In a separate analysis, the court held the evidence was factually sufficient. After weighing the entire record, including the parents’ history of substance abuse against their challenges to the termination, the court concluded that the evidence favoring the best-interest finding was not so weak as to make the judgment clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. The court emphasized that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the testimony.

Practical Application

This case provides a roadmap for litigators on how to bridge the gap between “endangerment” and “best interest.” When representing the Department or an Intervenor, focus on the “predictive power” of the parent’s history. Conversely, for defense counsel, this case underscores that unless there is a significant, documented period of sobriety and stability, appellate courts are highly likely to defer to trial court findings of termination when substance abuse is a central theme.

Checklists

Best Interest Evidentiary Strategy

• Document all prenatal drug exposure through medical and toxicology records.
• Secure certified copies of all drug-related criminal convictions and probation revocation motions.
• Cross-reference § 161.001(b)(1) endangerment testimony to specific Holley factors (e.g., physical danger and parental abilities).
• Obtain testimony regarding the father’s conduct while on community supervision to demonstrate an inability to follow court orders.

Defending Against Termination Findings

• Develop a timeline showing a “clean break” from substance abuse prior to the termination trial.
• Highlight specific instances of compliance with FBSS or service plans that demonstrate improved parental ability.
• Isolate “past conduct” from “present ability” by introducing evidence of stable housing and employment obtained post-removal.
• Argue the lack of a “nexus” between a parent’s past criminal history and the current physical or emotional needs of the children if the children were not present during the criminal acts.

Citation

In the Interest of T.B., K.B., T.B., K.B., Children, No. 11-25-00248-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion

~~2609c81f-3a1d-4ccc-a1c5-6572e20eea5b~~