Best-Interest Sufficiency Under Family Code § 161.001(b)(2) | In re A.F. (2026)

In the Interest of A.F., a child; In the Interest of M.M. and M.M., children, 07-26-00099-CV, June 29, 2026.

On appeal from 320th District Court, Potter County, Texas (for A.F.); 108th District Court, Potter County, Texas (for M.M. and M.M.)

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Evidence of Mother’s fentanyl trafficking, neglectful supervision, ongoing drug abuse, incarceration, prior Department involvement, and the children’s stable relative placement permitted the factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical impact extends well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCR modifications, conservatorship disputes, geographic restrictions, and supervised-possession fights arising in divorce or post-divorce cases, In re A.F. reinforces how courts evaluate parental instability, substance abuse, criminal conduct, and caregiving disruption through a child-centered lens. The opinion is also useful when building or attacking best-interest proof in private custody cases, especially where one side argues that dangerous conduct, incarceration, or chronic impairment should drive conservatorship and possession outcomes even short of termination.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved after Mother took the children to Northwest Texas Hospital and sold 100 fentanyl pills to an undercover officer. She left the children in a vehicle with her boyfriend while she went inside to complete the transaction. When law enforcement located the children, the boyfriend appeared to be under the influence of an unknown substance. Both adults were arrested, and no caregiver remained available for the children.

The record was especially damaging because this was not an isolated event. At the time of removal, Mother already had an open Department case and was receiving family-based safety services based on neglectful-supervision concerns. The Department then took emergency possession of the children, and they were placed with a paternal aunt.

At trial, the court heard evidence that Mother had a severe fentanyl addiction and a history of methamphetamine abuse. Her fentanyl-delivery arrest also triggered revocation of probation in a separate methamphetamine-possession case. She received a ten-year sentence for manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance and a one-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine, with parole eligibility not until 2030. Mother admitted using fentanyl and methadone while caring for the children and admitted being high while transporting them to the drug transaction that precipitated removal. Because she remained incarcerated throughout the case, she could not visit the children, who were four, six, and seven years old. The children’s placement with their paternal aunt was presented as stable and capable of meeting their needs.

Issues Decided

• Whether clear and convincing evidence was legally sufficient to support the finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether clear and convincing evidence was factually sufficient to support the same best-interest finding.
• Whether the entire record permitted a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination, rather than preservation of the parent-child relationship, was in the children’s best interest.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b): the Department had to prove both a predicate ground under subsection (b)(1) and best interest under subsection (b)(2) by clear and convincing evidence. Mother did not challenge the predicate findings, so the appeal centered entirely on best interest.

The court relied on these core authorities:

• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2), requiring proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.
• Texas Family Code § 101.007, defining clear and convincing evidence as proof that produces a firm belief or conviction in the mind of the factfinder.
• In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), for the standards governing legal and factual sufficiency review in termination cases.
• In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002), for the factual-sufficiency framework and the principle that best-interest proof need not satisfy every Holley factor.
• In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009), for legal-sufficiency review in the clear-and-convincing context.
• Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), for the non-exclusive best-interest factors.
• In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013), for the principle that evidence supporting predicate grounds may also support best interest.
• In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006), recognizing the presumption favoring preservation of the parent-child relationship.

The opinion also reaffirmed the usual appellate deference to the factfinder on credibility, conflicts in the evidence, and the choice among competing inferences.

Application

The court’s application was straightforward and highly practical. It began from the premise that best interest is child-focused, not parent-focused, and that the factfinder was entitled to consider the same evidence supporting the unchallenged predicate grounds as part of the best-interest analysis. That mattered here because the conduct underlying removal was not merely criminal; it directly exposed the children to immediate danger.

Mother’s drug trafficking was central to the court’s reasoning, but it was the surrounding circumstances that gave the evidence its full force. She brought the children to the site of a fentanyl sale, left them in a car with an impaired boyfriend, and engaged in the transaction while already under Department scrutiny for neglectful supervision. The court treated those facts as probative of present and future danger, poor parental judgment, and an improper parent-child relationship under Holley.

Mother’s admissions made the case stronger for the Department. She admitted using fentanyl and methadone while caring for the children and admitted being high while transporting them to the drug deal. That evidence tied substance abuse directly to caregiving impairment rather than leaving the court to infer risk from drug history alone. The incarceration evidence then amplified the best-interest case: Mother’s prison sentence rendered her unable to provide day-to-day care or maintain visitation during the suit, and parole eligibility years into the future undermined any near-term permanency argument.

The relative placement completed the picture. The court emphasized that the children were placed with a paternal aunt in a stable environment that was meeting their needs. In termination appeals, courts often look for comparative permanence rather than simply parental deficiencies, and the presence of a functioning kinship placement allowed the appellate court to conclude that termination would serve, not merely punish. In the court’s view, the totality of the evidence permitted a reasonable factfinder to form the required firm belief or conviction.

Holding

The Seventh Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Mother’s fentanyl trafficking, neglectful supervision, substance abuse while caring for the children, incarceration, and inability to provide care, coupled with the children’s stable placement with a paternal aunt, demonstrated that termination was in the children’s best interest.

The court also held the evidence was factually sufficient. Considering the full record, the disputed evidence was not so significant as to prevent a reasonable factfinder from forming a firm belief or conviction in favor of termination. The appellate court therefore affirmed the termination judgments.

Practical Application

For Department counsel and children’s-law practitioners, In re A.F. is a useful reminder that best-interest proof is strongest when it integrates three themes into one narrative: direct danger to the children, parental unavailability, and a concrete permanency alternative. The case shows how drug trafficking, active use during caregiving, and incarceration are far more persuasive when tied to a specific removal episode involving the children rather than presented abstractly.

For counsel representing parents, the opinion highlights a recurring appellate problem: once predicate findings go unchallenged, the best-interest appeal becomes much harder to win if the record contains direct admissions, contemporaneous endangerment, and a stable kinship placement. In private custody litigation, the same logic applies. A pattern of substance abuse, criminal conduct, or impaired supervision can materially affect conservatorship, possession, and decision-making allocations even if termination is not sought.

Practitioners should also note the opinion’s strategic value in modification and enforcement settings. If one party is incarcerated, abusing controlled substances, or associating the children with dangerous third parties, In re A.F. supports arguments for supervised possession, restricted access, temporary sole managing conservatorship, or emergency relief. Conversely, if representing the accused parent, the lesson is to build a record of treatment, sobriety verification, safe caregivers, compliance, and a realistic reunification timeline before the case hardens around permanence and relative placement.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record for the Petitioner

• Tie the parent’s misconduct to concrete risk to the child, not just general unfitness.
• Prove the timing and circumstances of removal in detail.
• Introduce evidence of substance use while actively caring for the child.
• Show how criminal conduct impaired supervision, judgment, or availability.
• Establish prior Department history, especially if the new event occurred during an open case or ongoing services.
• Develop incarceration evidence with sentence length, parole eligibility, and practical impact on caregiving.
• Present testimony that the current placement is safe, stable, and meeting the child’s emotional and physical needs.
• Connect the placement to permanency, not just temporary safety.
• Use admissions by the parent wherever possible to reduce credibility disputes on appeal.

Defending Against a Best-Interest Termination Case

• Do not concede the practical significance of unchallenged predicate grounds if an appeal is anticipated.
• Build a detailed rehabilitation record, including treatment, testing, counseling, and relapse prevention.
• Offer evidence of a realistic and prompt plan for safe reunification.
• Show consistent efforts to maintain contact, even during incarceration, through letters, calls, services, and participation.
• Present testimony from credible relatives or providers supporting parental progress.
• Undercut any claim that the placement is uniquely permanent or superior if the evidence permits.
• Address dangerous third-party associations directly rather than leaving the issue unexplained.
• Give the trial court a concrete timeline for stability, housing, employment, and sobriety.
• Preserve legal- and factual-sufficiency complaints with a record aimed at the clear-and-convincing standard.

Using In re A.F. in Private SAPCR and Divorce Litigation

• Cite the case when arguing that substance abuse and criminal conduct are relevant to best interest even outside CPS proceedings.
• Use it to support supervised possession where a parent’s impairment affects transportation or supervision.
• Apply its reasoning to requests for sole managing conservatorship based on instability and danger.
• Pair it with evidence of third-party impairment if the parent leaves the child with unsafe companions.
• Emphasize that courts prioritize permanence and stability when making child-centered orders.
• Distinguish the case if your client’s conduct is remote, treated, and unconnected to current caregiving.

Trial-Level Preservation and Appellate Framing

• Identify whether the appeal will challenge predicate grounds, best interest, or both.
• Frame sufficiency arguments around the firm-belief-or-conviction standard.
• Separate legal-sufficiency and factual-sufficiency analysis in briefing.
• Address Holley factors narratively rather than mechanically.
• Highlight evidence that is child-specific rather than parent-generic.
• Anticipate appellate deference on credibility and conflicting inferences.
• Make sure the record explains why the proposed placement serves long-term best interest.
• If representing the parent, force development of contrary evidence so factual-sufficiency review has something to work with.

Citation

In the Interest of A.F., a Child; In the Interest of M.M. and M.M., Children, Nos. 07-26-00098-CV, 07-26-00099-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 29, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c2900a38-1f9a-42aa-87ac-fd9545c2b191~~