Endangerment Under § 161.001(b)(1)(E): In re A.Z.Q. (2026)

In the Interest of A.Z.Q., a Child, 08-26-00125-CV, August 10, 2026.

On appeal from 109th District Court, Winkler County, Texas

Synopsis

The Eighth Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The mother’s admitted cocaine use, the child’s positive test for cocaine and THC, her failure to disclose likely marijuana ingestion to medical providers, her continued post-removal drug use, and her failure to meaningfully complete substance-abuse-related services supported a firm belief or conviction that she engaged in a course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its reasoning has immediate consequences across Texas family-law practice, especially in SAPCR modifications, conservatorship disputes, supervised-access litigation, geographic restrictions, and protective-order-adjacent custody fights. In re A.Z.Q. reinforces a point trial lawyers ignore at their peril: substance abuse is rarely litigated as an isolated event. Courts will assess the parent’s entire course of conduct, including pre-removal behavior, post-removal conduct, credibility problems, minimization of risk, and failure to engage services designed to correct the danger. In private custody litigation, the same evidentiary themes can drive restrictions on possession, denial of joint managing conservatorship, expanded injunctions, drug-testing protocols, and findings that a parent cannot presently exercise unsupervised access safely.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case arose after three-year-old A.Z.Q. was hospitalized on September 21, 2024, and tested positive for cocaine and THC. The Department’s investigator testified that the mother admitted using cocaine in the home while the child was present. The investigator also described the parents as resistant, difficult to work with, and unconvinced that the child’s drug exposure created any real concern. That lack of recognition of danger mattered.

The mother offered a different account at trial. She testified that she and the child had gone to her grandfather’s home, where the child obtained candy from a dresser in the grandfather’s bedroom. Later, after the child began losing balance and drifting in and out of sleep, she took him for medical care. She further testified that she later realized the candy was marijuana gummies. But critically, she did not disclose that information to medical providers in Lubbock, even after she believed she had identified the source of at least part of the child’s condition.

The Department’s service plan identified chronic sobriety and home-safety concerns. It required the mother to maintain a safe and drug-free home, submit to regular testing, complete OSAR assessment recommendations, participate in counseling, complete parenting classes, undergo a psychological evaluation, and remain in contact with the Department. She signed the plan.

At trial, the Department presented evidence that the mother completed some components, including a psychological evaluation, but did not achieve meaningful compliance on the core issue that drove removal: substance abuse and child safety. The caseworker testified the mother completed two OSAR assessments but denied substance abuse during both, which made her ineligible for recommended treatment. She initially submitted to testing, but after multiple positive results and repeated referrals back to OSAR, she stopped testing altogether. The caseworker also testified that monthly home visits ceased because the mother was often unavailable or would not answer the door.

The record also included evidence of broader instability and poor protective judgment. The grandmother testified that the grandfather was a known drug user and that the mother and grandfather had used cocaine together. The mother herself admitted that she used cocaine with her grandfather and, more damaging still, admitted she continued using drugs with him after the child’s hospitalization and removal. The record also reflected prior Department history, including that the child had tested positive for methamphetamines at birth.

On visitation, Department witnesses described a strained and dysregulated parent-child relationship. Visits often ended early, did not occur, or escalated quickly, with the child refusing affection, asking for his grandmother, and at times becoming physically aggressive toward the mother. The grandmother testified to the child’s progress in placement and his need for permanency and stability.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
• Whether a parent’s drug use, failure to protect a child from drug exposure, minimization of danger, continued post-removal misconduct, and failure to complete remedial services can establish the endangering course of conduct required by subsection (E).

Rules Applied

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) permits termination if the parent engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. Endangerment under subsection (E) means to expose the child to loss or injury or to jeopardize the child’s emotional or physical health. The inquiry is not limited to a single act; it focuses on a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent.

The court applied familiar legal- and factual-sufficiency standards governing termination cases. Because termination requires clear and convincing evidence, the appellate question is whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the Department’s allegations. Under legal sufficiency review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and assumes disputed facts were resolved in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so. Under factual sufficiency review, the court considers the entire record to determine whether disputed evidence is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed the required firm belief or conviction.

The court’s analysis also reflects settled Texas termination law that illegal drug use may support an endangerment finding, especially when it subjects a child to uncertainty, instability, impaired parenting, or actual exposure. Just as important, endangerment may be established through conduct both before and after the child’s removal. Failure to complete services does not itself create an independent termination ground under subsection (E), but it is probative of whether the parent has addressed the danger and whether the endangering course of conduct is ongoing.

Application

The appellate court treated this record as much more than a case about a child’s isolated ingestion event. The child did not merely present with unexplained symptoms; he was hospitalized and tested positive for cocaine and THC. Against that backdrop, the mother admitted cocaine use in the home while the child was present. She also admitted continued drug use after the child’s removal. That post-removal conduct significantly strengthened the Department’s case because it showed the underlying danger had not abated.

The court also appears to have placed substantial weight on the mother’s minimization of risk. According to the investigator, she believed cocaine use was normal because “everyone did it.” And even under the mother’s own account, once she believed the child had consumed marijuana gummies, she still failed to disclose that information to treating medical professionals. A factfinder could reasonably treat that omission as evidence of poor protective judgment and indifference to the seriousness of the child’s condition.

Her service-plan performance likewise mattered, not in a technical-compliance sense, but as evidence that the safety concerns remained unresolved. The mother completed some formal requirements, but when referred for OSAR after positive tests, she denied substance abuse and therefore did not obtain treatment. After further positive testing and repeated referrals, she stopped testing altogether. The court could view that pattern as conscious avoidance rather than progress. The same was true of the evidence that home visits eventually stopped because she was not available or would not answer the door.

The appellate court also had little difficulty treating the record as a course-of-conduct case rather than a one-off lapse. The Department introduced evidence of prior CPS involvement, the child’s positive methamphetamine test at birth, the mother’s admitted history of substance use, her association and drug use with a known drug-using grandfather, and the fact that the child’s severe exposure event occurred in that environment. Taken together, the evidence supported a finding of continuing instability and danger, not an aberrational accident.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The child’s positive cocaine and THC test, the mother’s admitted cocaine use in the child’s presence, her failure to inform medical providers about the likely marijuana-gummy ingestion, her continued drug use after removal, and her failure to engage honestly in substance-abuse services would permit a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that she engaged in an endangering course of conduct.

The court likewise held the evidence was factually sufficient under subsection (E). Even considering the mother’s competing explanations, including her testimony that the child recovered quickly and that others caused some visitation or service issues, the disputed evidence was not so significant as to prevent the trial court from reasonably forming a firm belief or conviction that the statutory ground was met. The pattern of drug-related danger, minimization, and noncompliance remained the dominant evidentiary story.

Practical Application

For Department lawyers and child-advocacy counsel, In re A.Z.Q. is a reminder to build subsection (E) around pattern evidence, not merely the triggering event. If the child was exposed to drugs, prove not only the exposure but the parent’s reaction to it: whether the parent appreciated the danger, disclosed relevant information to medical providers, altered behavior afterward, and engaged honestly in treatment. A parent’s denial of substance abuse during assessments, despite positive tests, is especially powerful because it reframes “partial compliance” as unresolved risk.

For parents’ counsel, the case is an object lesson in how quickly credibility and minimization can become the decisive issue. If the client has a substance-use history, the strategic objective cannot be superficial box-checking. Counsel must push the client toward candid assessment participation, documented sobriety, consistent testing, and demonstrable separation from unsafe associates. In a termination or modification case, stopping drug testing after positive results is often worse than continuing and relapsing, because nonparticipation is readily cast as concealment.

In private custody litigation, this decision provides a roadmap for proving endangerment-adjacent restrictions even where termination is not on the table. A litigator seeking supervised possession, a step-up plan, or limits on decision-making can frame the case around the same pillars: actual child exposure, parental minimization, association with active drug users, refusal to engage treatment, and post-filing noncompliance. Conversely, the responding parent must show measurable rehabilitation, not argumentative explanations.

The opinion is also useful in relocation and modification contexts where one parent argues that historical substance abuse should be disregarded because the child is no longer in immediate danger. In re A.Z.Q. undercuts that position. Texas courts may consider both pre-removal and post-removal conduct, and ongoing instability after intervention remains highly probative. In other words, the case supports the proposition that the filing of a suit does not reset the parent’s evidentiary history.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record Under Subsection (E)

• Obtain and authenticate medical records showing the child’s toxicology results.
• Tie the child’s exposure to the parent’s conduct, not just to the environment generally.
• Develop admissions regarding in-home drug use, frequency, timing, and who was present.
• Elicit evidence showing the parent minimized or normalized illegal drug use.
• Prove what the parent knew, when the parent knew it, and what the parent failed to disclose to medical providers or investigators.
• Introduce evidence of continued drug use after removal or after suit was filed.
• Document the parent’s ongoing association with unsafe caregivers or active drug users.
• Use prior CPS history carefully to show pattern, continuity, and lack of remediation where admissible.

Proving Noncompliance as Evidence of Continuing Danger

• Offer the service plan and the parent’s signed acknowledgment.
• Separate formal completion from substantive remediation.
• Show whether the parent participated honestly in OSAR, counseling, or chemical-dependency evaluation.
• Establish whether positive drug tests led to treatment referrals and whether treatment actually occurred.
• Highlight any denial of substance use during assessments despite objective positive tests.
• Document when and why testing stopped.
• Present evidence of missed home visits, inability to locate the parent, or refusal to permit access.
• Connect noncompliance back to the original safety concern rather than arguing mere technical default.

Defending a Parent Against an Endangerment Theory

• Get the client into immediate, documented, credible treatment.
• Do not allow the client to deny obvious substance-use history in assessments.
• Create a clean, consistent testing record as early as possible.
• Prepare a corroborated timeline explaining any positive tests, missed tests, or service interruptions.
• Produce records showing completed counseling, relapse-prevention work, and aftercare.
• Demonstrate separation from unsafe relatives, partners, or drug-using associates.
• Document housing stability, employment, and practical caregiving capacity.
• Address the medical event directly; do not minimize the child’s exposure or symptoms.
• Prepare the client to acknowledge past danger while articulating concrete behavioral change.

Using the Case in Private SAPCR and Modification Litigation

• Plead facts showing a continuing course of conduct, not merely isolated misconduct.
• Request temporary orders for testing, supervised possession, and anti-use injunctions where warranted.
• Seek medical, counseling, school, and third-party records reflecting the child’s reaction to the parent’s conduct.
• Use the parent’s noncompliance with voluntary services, court orders, or agreed protocols as risk evidence.
• Frame best-interest arguments around instability, impaired supervision, and poor protective judgment.
• For the responding parent, present a rehabilitation narrative supported by documents, not testimony alone.

Citation

In the Interest of A.Z.Q., a Child, No. 08-26-00125-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~75600eaf-210f-4a03-9222-8b2670420056~~