Termination Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E) Upheld | In re P.A. (2026)

In the Interest of P.A., Jr., L.L.-A., and S.A., Children, 06-26-00018-CV, June 05, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law, Lamar County, Texas

Synopsis

The Texarkana Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), based on ongoing methamphetamine use, repeated refusals and failures to test, noncompliance with services, and the parents’ exposure of the children to unsafe conditions and conduct. The court also upheld the best-interest finding, and as to Mother, affirmance was independently supported by unchallenged predicate grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1)(I) and (P).

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family law litigators handling SAPCR modifications, conservatorship restrictions, supervised possession disputes, and divorce cases involving children, In re P.A. reinforces that persistent drug use, evasive testing behavior, noncompliance with court-ordered services, and association with dangerous individuals remain highly probative on questions of endangerment, parental judgment, and best interest. The opinion is also a reminder that appellate preservation matters: if a parent leaves predicate grounds unchallenged, those unchallenged findings may independently sustain the judgment, which has obvious implications for appellate strategy in any custody-centered appeal.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department filed to terminate both parents’ rights to three children after evidence developed of substance abuse, service-plan noncompliance, and unsafe parental choices. The record showed Mother had prior CPS history and that the Department became involved again after her arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia in late 2024. She failed to submit to a court-ordered drug test, refused recommended outpatient substance-abuse treatment, and did not complete her psychosocial assessment.

The evidence then escalated. Mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in March 2025, refused additional testing in April and May, and engaged in suspicious specimen conduct when attempting to provide a urine sample. She admitted she had last used methamphetamine with Father. The children were removed in May 2025.

The Department also developed evidence that Mother married a man incarcerated for murdering a young child. At trial, Mother admitted she married him while intentionally disregarding the nature of his charges. She also admitted she had not completed parenting classes, had been dropped from substance-abuse counseling, was unemployed, and had been found in contempt for failing to comply with drug-testing orders.

As to Father, the record showed repeated refusal to engage. He did not complete required parenting classes, refused multiple drug tests, resisted the Department’s involvement, and ultimately tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine in November 2025 before again refusing later testing. He likewise failed to provide proof of employment.

Placement evidence favored the Department. The children were living with a maternal aunt in a safe and appropriate home, were doing well in school, attended church, and were thriving together. The CASA representative and permanency specialist both testified that return to either parent would be unsafe because neither parent had demonstrated any meaningful period of sobriety or stability.

Issues Decided

The court decided the following issues:

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) based on knowingly placing or allowing the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) based on endangering conduct by the parents.
• Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether affirmance as to Mother was proper in light of unchallenged predicate findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(I) and (P).

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework under Texas Family Code Section 161.001, which requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one predicate ground under Section 161.001(b)(1) and a separate best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2).

The opinion reiterates several core standards:

• Termination proceedings implicate constitutional interests and therefore require heightened judicial review.
• “Clear and convincing evidence” means the measure of proof that produces in the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.
• Legal sufficiency review requires the appellate court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and assume disputed facts were resolved in favor of the judgment if a reasonable factfinder could do so.
• Factual sufficiency review requires the court to consider whether, in light of the entire record, disputed evidence is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction.

The court relied on the standard authorities that regularly govern parental-rights appeals, including In re A.C., In re A.B., In re J.F.C., In re H.R.M., In re J.P.B., In re C.H., In re E.N.C., and In re N.G. It also recognized the continuing principle that while parental rights are fundamental, they are not absolute, and the child’s safety and welfare remain paramount.

Application

The court’s analysis tracks the evidentiary pattern Texas appellate courts routinely treat as sufficient on endangerment grounds: repeated methamphetamine use, repeated refusals to test, failure to engage in treatment, and failure to comply with court-ordered services. The Department did not have to show a single dramatic event of acute harm. Instead, the record reflected a continuing course of conduct from which the trial court could reasonably infer danger to the children’s physical and emotional well-being.

As to subsection (D), the court had evidence that the parents allowed the children to remain in surroundings shaped by active drug use and instability. Mother admitted methamphetamine use with Father, and both parents repeatedly evaded drug testing. A factfinder could reasonably treat refusals and missed tests as evidence that continued use was being concealed. The record also included Mother’s decision to marry an incarcerated murderer of a young child while disregarding the underlying facts, which the trial court could view as further proof of profoundly impaired judgment about child safety.

As to subsection (E), the court had a stronger and more personalized conduct record. Mother’s positive drug tests, refusals to test, refusal to complete treatment, contempt for violating testing orders, unemployment, and failure to complete parenting classes all supported an inference of a voluntary and deliberate course of endangering conduct. Father’s refusal to cooperate with the case, failure to complete services, positive methamphetamine test, and serial refusals to test likewise supported the endangerment finding against him. The court viewed this not as isolated noncompliance, but as an ongoing pattern demonstrating instability and disregard for the children’s welfare.

On best interest, the appellate court had both negative and affirmative evidence. Negatively, the parents had not shown sobriety, compliance, or stability. Affirmatively, the children were placed with a maternal aunt in a safe, appropriate, and successful placement where they were doing well. That comparative evidence matters. The trial court was entitled to weigh not only the parents’ persistent deficiencies, but also the existence of a stable alternative meeting the children’s needs.

The opinion also carries an important appellate lesson. Mother challenged only subsections (D), (E), and best interest, but did not challenge the trial court’s findings under subsections (I) and (P). Because unchallenged predicate grounds independently supported termination, affirmance as to Mother was proper regardless of any attack on (D) and (E). For appellate practitioners, that is the kind of briefing omission that can effectively end the appeal before the merits are fully engaged.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D). The parents’ drug use, refusals to submit to requested and court-ordered testing, noncompletion of substance-abuse services, and the broader instability reflected in the home environment permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that the children had been subjected to endangering conditions or surroundings.

The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). The record showed more than episodic poor judgment; it showed a continuing course of endangering conduct by both parents, including methamphetamine use, evasion of testing, refusal to comply with services, and failure to demonstrate sobriety or stability over time.

The court further held that the evidence supported the best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2). The children were doing well in a safe kinship placement, while the parents remained noncompliant, unstable, and unable to show that return would be safe.

Finally, as to Mother, the court recognized that unchallenged findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(I) and (P) independently supported termination. That provided an additional and sufficient basis for affirmance.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, In re P.A. is a useful opinion in several recurring settings. In modification litigation, it provides another appellate example of how ongoing drug use and refusal to test can support findings that a parent’s environment and conduct endanger a child, even where the evidence is circumstantial and inferential rather than tied to a single catastrophic event. In contested conservatorship and possession disputes, the case supports aggressive use of drug-testing history, service-plan analogs, contempt history, and evidence of unsafe associates to establish impaired parental judgment and risk to the child.

The case is also strategically important for trial lawyers because it shows how courts synthesize “small” facts into a larger endangerment narrative. A missed test is rarely just a missed test. A failure to attend treatment is rarely just noncompliance. An unsafe romantic association is rarely irrelevant to parenting. When these facts accumulate, they become a pattern from which a factfinder may infer present and future danger. That same logic often appears in non-termination cases involving supervised possession, geographic restrictions, or sole-managing-conservatorship requests.

For appellate lawyers, the most practical lesson is straightforward: challenge every predicate ground that carries independent affirmance risk, particularly (D) and (E), because of their collateral consequences, but also any additional grounds actually found by the trial court. A selective attack may be fatal. When representing appellees, this case is a good reminder to foreground waiver and unchallenged grounds at the outset of the response brief.

Checklists

Preserving a Strong Endangerment Record

• Obtain and admit all drug-test results, including positives, refusals, no-shows, diluted samples, and suspicious specimen incidents.
• Tie each missed or refused test to the relevant court order, service plan, or Department request.
• Develop evidence showing duration and repetition, not just isolated incidents.
• Elicit admissions regarding last use, co-use with the other parent, and failure to complete treatment.
• Document noncompliance with parenting classes, counseling, psychosocial assessments, and employment verification.
• Build evidence about unsafe third parties or associates whose presence bears on child safety.

Proving Best Interest Beyond Predicate Grounds

• Present evidence of the child’s performance in the current placement, including school, medical, behavioral, and emotional functioning.
• Show that the placement is safe, stable, and meeting the child’s needs.
• Use CASA, caseworker, therapist, teacher, and caregiver testimony to show present and future needs.
• Contrast the parent’s instability with the child’s progress in care.
• Address sobriety, housing, employment, insight, and consistency, not merely the parent’s stated desire for reunification.

Defending Parents at Trial

• Advise the client early that missed or refused drug tests will likely be treated as adverse evidence.
• Cure service-plan deficiencies before trial rather than offering explanations after the fact.
• Prepare documentary proof of treatment attendance, employment, housing, and counseling.
• Confront unsafe-associate evidence directly; do not assume the court will treat it as collateral.
• If the client disputes notice of testing or services, develop corroborating evidence instead of relying on unsupported denial.
• Put on evidence of sustained sobriety and stability over time, not just recent intentions.

Appellate Briefing Checklist in Termination Cases

• Challenge every predicate ground that independently supports termination unless there is a deliberate strategic reason not to do so.
• Always evaluate whether subsection (D) or (E) findings must be attacked because of collateral consequences.
• Do not overlook unchallenged grounds under subsections such as (I) or (P), which can independently sustain the judgment.
• Separate legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency arguments with precision.
• Address best interest independently; do not assume a successful challenge to one predicate ground resolves the appeal.
• Frame disputed evidence in light of the clear-and-convincing standard, not ordinary civil sufficiency review.

Using In re P.A. in Non-CPS Family Litigation

• Cite the case when arguing that repeated drug-test avoidance supports an inference of continued substance abuse.
• Use the opinion to support supervised possession or restricted access where a parent has not demonstrated sustained sobriety.
• Apply its reasoning in modification cases involving unsafe living conditions or dangerous romantic partners.
• Pair the case with evidence of instability in housing, employment, communication, and compliance with court orders.
• Emphasize that courts may infer endangerment from a course of conduct rather than a single act of direct harm.

Citation

In the Interest of P.A., Jr., L.L.-A., and S.A., Children, No. 06-26-00018-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana June 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c9aac8a3-07ef-43e8-99eb-1c6b78a9f12f~~