Endangerment and Best Interest Support Termination | In re E.T. and J.T. (2026)
In the Interest of E.T. and J.T., Children, 13-26-00395-CV, September 10, 2026.
On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of San Patricio County, Texas
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) based on endangering conduct and under § 161.001(b)(2) based on best interest. The court treated Mother’s repeated methamphetamine use, refusal to submit to drug testing, abandonment of very young children, and failure to provide stable day-to-day care as a continuing course of endangering conduct that was not overcome by short-lived periods of compliance.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this is a termination case, its reasoning matters well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family law litigators handling SAPCRs, modifications, divorce-related custody disputes, and conservatorship fights, the opinion reinforces that courts will look at patterns, not isolated excuses: repeated drug use, unexplained test refusals, delegating primary care to third parties, instability in housing or employment, and abandonment-type conduct can powerfully shape best-interest findings even where a parent shows temporary improvement. The case is especially useful when arguing that a parent’s recent compliance should be weighed against a much longer history of instability, or conversely, when advising a client that partial service-plan performance will not neutralize a record of ongoing endangerment.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to two young children, ages four and two at trial. The Department presented a long history of prior investigations involving Mother, including allegations of drug use, negligent supervision, physical abuse, uncooperativeness with investigators, and unsafe caregivers. The record reflected repeated concerns spanning many years, including a prior positive methamphetamine test, allegations that children were exposed to controlled substances, and reports that Mother would not permit the Department access to herself or the children.
The immediate case arose after police found one child, Eddie, shivering alone outside a laundromat at about 8:00 a.m., while the younger child, Joey, was left strapped into a car seat by himself. The children were dirty, their diapers were soaked with urine and feces, and Mother admitted she had left them alone while she went to paint a nearby apartment. She characterized the absence as only ten to fifteen minutes, but the Department treated the incident as child abandonment, and Mother was arrested.
After removal, the Department developed a service plan requiring assessments, random drug testing, substance-abuse services, parenting classes, and employment. Mother initially showed some progress. But that progress was undercut by a positive hair-follicle test for methamphetamine, several no-show drug tests, and later a string of outright refusals to test. Although the children were returned to Mother for reunification, the Department grew concerned that they were actually living with Galvan, a family friend and landlord, rather than with Mother. Galvan was reportedly handling daycare drop-offs and pick-ups, had enrolled the children, and advised the Department that Mother had left the children with him and had not returned.
The children were removed again. Thereafter, Mother continued refusing drug tests and later tested positive multiple times for methamphetamine and amphetamines. She had not visited the children since August 2025. The Department also presented evidence of continued instability in Mother’s home, including an unidentified man in the apartment and a physical altercation involving Mother’s older children that required police intervention.
By contrast, the evidence showed that Galvan had been a stable, consistent caretaker for Eddie and Joey for much of their lives, that the children were closely bonded to him, and that the Department recommended he be named permanent managing conservator. Mother admitted some of the core facts, including leaving the children alone, but attempted to minimize them and gave shifting explanations regarding her drug use and the children’s living arrangements.
Issues Decided
The court decided the following issues:
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported one or more predicate grounds for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), specifically parental endangerment.
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).
- Whether Mother’s temporary compliance with portions of her service plan and periods of negative urinalysis prevented termination in light of her broader pattern of drug use, abandonment, and instability.
Rules Applied
The court applied the familiar two-pronged termination framework under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b): the Department had to prove by clear and convincing evidence both a predicate ground under § 161.001(b)(1) and that termination was in the children’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
On endangerment, the court relied on the settled principle that “endanger” means to expose a child to loss or injury or to jeopardize a child’s emotional or physical well-being. Endangerment findings may rest on a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct; actual injury is not required. Drug use, particularly when persistent or recurring, may support an endangerment finding because it exposes children to instability and the possibility that the parent may be impaired, incarcerated, or otherwise unable to provide safe care. A parent’s refusal to submit to court-ordered or requested drug testing may be treated as probative of continued drug use.
On best interest, the court applied the nonexclusive Holley factors, including the children’s desires, present and future emotional and physical needs, present and future danger, parental abilities, programs available to assist the parent, plans for the children, stability of the proposed placement, acts or omissions of the parent indicating the parent-child relationship is improper, and any excuses for the parent’s conduct. The court also recognized that evidence supporting endangerment may overlap substantially with the best-interest analysis.
The court further applied the standards of legal and factual sufficiency review unique to termination cases: reviewing whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations, while giving due deference to credibility determinations and the clear-and-convincing burden.
Application
The court’s application was straightforward and pragmatic. It did not isolate the November 2024 abandonment event and ask whether that single incident alone justified termination. Instead, it examined Mother’s conduct as a pattern. That pattern included a lengthy Department history, repeated allegations of neglectful supervision, recurring methamphetamine use, noncooperation with investigators, refusal to drug test when testing would have clarified sobriety, and inability or unwillingness to provide stable, direct care for very young children.
The abandonment evidence was particularly powerful because it was concrete, recent, and involved children of exceptionally vulnerable ages. One child was found outside alone, shivering near a laundromat, while the younger child remained strapped into a car seat unattended. The condition of the children—their filth, urine- and feces-soaked diapers, and visible marks—permitted the trial court to infer not just a brief lapse in judgment but a broader failure of basic care and supervision. Mother’s attempt to minimize the event as only a short absence did not compel the trial court to accept her account, especially in light of the physical condition of the children.
The drug-use evidence reinforced endangerment. Mother’s February 2025 positive hair-follicle result for methamphetamine, repeated no-shows and refusals, and later positive tests in early 2026 allowed the trial court to infer that drug use was ongoing, not historical. Her explanation that she used methamphetamine in order to qualify for rehab was facially problematic, and the trial court was free to disbelieve it. Just as important, the court treated refused drug tests as significant evidence rather than neutral gaps in the proof.
Temporary compliance did not save Mother because the court viewed it as episodic and incomplete. She had some negative urinalysis results, participated in services, and regained temporary possession of the children. But once reunification occurred, the same concerns resurfaced: refusals to drug test, apparent reliance on Galvan for daily care, employment instability, disappearance from the children’s lives, and renewed positive methamphetamine tests. In the court’s view, this sequence showed that brief compliance did not establish durable parental stability.
On best interest, the court weighed the children’s young age, need for permanence, and strong bond with Galvan. The evidence indicated Galvan had functioned as the children’s consistent caregiver for much of their lives and could provide a stable placement. The Department’s recommendation for permanent managing conservatorship with Galvan further supported the conclusion that permanence and safety favored termination. Mother’s lack of visitation after August 2025 and her ongoing instability undermined any competing claim that preserving the legal relationship would better serve the children.
Holding
The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) based on endangering conduct. Mother’s repeated methamphetamine use, repeated refusal to submit to drug tests, abandonment of the children while they were unsafely unattended, and inability to maintain stable care collectively established a continuing course of conduct that endangered the children’s physical and emotional well-being.
The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The children’s need for safety and permanence, Mother’s continued instability and lack of credibility, her absence from the children’s lives after removal, and the stability and bond offered by Galvan supported the best-interest finding under the Holley framework.
Finally, the court made clear that temporary compliance with services or isolated periods of negative testing do not negate a long record of endangering conduct. In termination litigation, the factfinder may reasonably conclude that a parent’s short-term improvement is outweighed by sustained instability and recurring risk.
Practical Application
For petitioner’s counsel, this opinion is a strong authority for framing endangerment as a longitudinal narrative rather than a series of disconnected incidents. If your case includes one dramatic supervision failure plus recurring drug concerns, missed tests, unstable employment, or repeated use of informal third-party caregivers, this opinion supports arguing that the trial court may infer a conscious course of conduct even when the parent points to recent sobriety or partial plan completion.
For parent-side counsel, the case is a warning that “substantial compliance” is not a shield if the client continues refusing tests, cannot document actual caregiving, or disappears from visitation. It also shows the danger of conceding core facts while minimizing them. When the record contains photographs, law-enforcement involvement, positive hair-follicle results, and evidence that another adult is functioning as the day-to-day parent, the appellate path becomes very narrow.
In private custody or modification litigation, the opinion is likewise useful. While the burden and statutory framework differ from termination, the court’s best-interest reasoning tracks arguments often made in conservatorship disputes: who is actually caring for the child, who provides continuity, whether substance abuse remains unresolved, and whether “improvement” is durable or merely tactical. Family law litigators should use this case when building or attacking credibility around recent rehabilitation narratives.
Strategically, the opinion underscores four recurring themes in Texas family law:
- Refused drug tests are rarely neutral.
- A parent’s delegation of daily care to a third party can become best-interest evidence against that parent.
- Courts privilege demonstrated stability over promised future reform.
- Temporary reunification does not immunize a parent from termination if the same safety concerns quickly return.
Checklists
Building the Endangerment Record
- Document all positive drug tests, including hair-follicle and urinalysis results.
- Treat missed or refused drug tests as affirmative evidence and develop testimony explaining agency policy on refusals.
- Tie substance use to parenting consequences: impaired supervision, instability, absences, criminal exposure, or unsafe companions.
- Develop a timeline showing repeated conduct rather than isolated incidents.
- Preserve evidence of child condition at removal, including photographs, police observations, medical concerns, and hygiene issues.
- Show how the parent’s conduct affected actual day-to-day care, not just abstract risk.
Proving Best Interest
- Develop testimony on the child’s bond with the current caregiver.
- Establish who handles routines: daycare, medical care, meals, transportation, bedtime, and discipline.
- Present evidence of the child’s need for permanence and why delay would be harmful.
- Compare the stability of the proposed placement against the parent’s housing, employment, sobriety, and visitation history.
- Address both present danger and future risk.
- Use the parent’s acts, omissions, and explanations to frame credibility under the Holley factors.
Handling Temporary Compliance Evidence
- Do not concede that negative tests or partial services resolve the case; place them in chronological context.
- Show whether compliance occurred only under supervision or shortly before trial.
- Compare short-term improvement against the length and seriousness of the prior conduct.
- Highlight any relapse, refusal to test, or post-reunification deterioration.
- Establish whether the parent translated services into actual safe parenting.
- Argue durability, not box-checking.
Defending a Parent Against a Pattern Case
- Get ahead of refused tests immediately; if there is a legitimate reason, document it contemporaneously.
- Create a clean, corroborated timeline of sobriety, treatment, employment, housing, and visitation.
- Present third-party witnesses who can verify daily caregiving and stability.
- Avoid implausible or shifting explanations for positive tests or absences.
- Demonstrate ownership of past misconduct rather than minimization.
- Show concrete behavioral change over time, not promises of future reform.
Advising Clients After Reunification
- Warn clients that reunification is a probationary stage, not vindication.
- Require strict compliance with every test request and every visitation or safety directive.
- Confirm that the children are actually residing where represented to the court and agency.
- Document employment, childcare arrangements, transportation, and daily routines.
- Avoid reliance on undocumented caregivers for extended periods.
- Treat every post-reunification incident as potentially outcome-determinative.
Citation
In the Interest of E.T. and J.T., Children, No. 13-26-00395-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~b061569d-de6a-450a-bf9b-7a929fb62a7e~~
Share this content:
