Section 161.001 Endangerment Findings | In re M.L.S. & T.L.S. Jr. (2026)

In the Interest of M.L.S. and T.L.S. Jr., Children, 11-26-00132-CV, October 22, 2026.

On appeal from 326th District Court, Taylor County, Texas

Synopsis

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) where Mother’s methamphetamine use, drug-induced paranoia, erratic conduct, and unsafe living conditions exposed the children to physical and emotional danger. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment and best-interest findings and affirmed the termination order.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a parental-termination case, its evidentiary analysis extends directly to conservatorship, possession, emergency-removal, and modification disputes. Evidence that a parent’s substance abuse impairs perception, produces paranoia, destabilizes housing, or causes children to be present around drugs, weapons, unsafe adults, or hazardous conditions may support findings of significant impairment, family violence-related restrictions, supervised possession, or limitations on conservatorship rights—even when no child has suffered a documented physical injury.

The opinion is also important in interstate custody litigation. A parent’s relocation does not neutralize existing safety concerns, particularly when the move interferes with drug testing, home studies, treatment verification, or court-ordered services. Litigators should expect courts to evaluate not merely whether a parent reports improvement, but whether objective evidence establishes sustained sobriety, treatment compliance, medication management, and a safe, verifiable residence.

The case has less direct significance in property division, but the same evidence may affect related disputes over exclusive use of the marital residence, temporary support, reimbursement claims, waste, and requests for protective temporary orders. Counsel should take care, however, to connect substance abuse and mental-health evidence to a legally relevant issue rather than presenting it solely as character evidence.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department filed suit after receiving allegations that Mother was using methamphetamine and experiencing severe paranoia while caring for M.L.S. and T.L.S. Jr. Mother contacted law enforcement claiming that people were inside her home. She was later found walking with the children near a closed convenience store while carrying a baseball bat. The children were shoeless and covered with a blanket that smelled of cat urine.

The Department’s investigator learned that Mother and the children had been sleeping in Mother’s vehicle because Mother believed they were unsafe in the home. One child reported that Mother had obtained a baggie containing a hard substance from a male acquaintance and transferred some of the substance to another man while the children were in the vehicle.

After Mother’s release from jail, an investigator observed her holding knives and cutting wires around the exterior of the home. Mother claimed that someone had broken into the residence, urinated on her belongings, planted drugs, and installed or manipulated wires. She attributed the activity to the “Witches of the Western Covenant.” She also asserted that someone had shaved a Star of David into a cat’s fur, although the investigator observed no disturbance to the animal’s coat.

Mother admitted using methamphetamine daily since January 2025. The investigator described her as distracted, erratic, and unable to comprehend the circumstances or the purpose of a proposed safety plan. Although the children were temporarily staying with their maternal grandmother, Mother attempted to retrieve them after being asked to leave them there while the Department assessed the situation.

Mother subsequently tested positive for amphetamine, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Although the Department requested monthly drug testing, she stopped consistently appearing for testing. Mother moved to California and entered inpatient rehabilitation but left without completing the program, reporting that she felt unsafe and believed people were eavesdropping on her and watching her through holes in the wall. She likewise did not complete outpatient mental-health or substance-abuse services.

The Department arranged counseling, assessments, visitation, psychological evaluations, and services in California through the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. Mother completed psychological evaluations and participated in many remote visits, but she did not complete the substance-abuse requirements and did not fully cooperate with the interstate process. She also declined to provide the release necessary for the Department to verify her claimed mental-health treatment. Her claimed use of Ativan was not corroborated by testing.

The children ultimately lived with their maternal aunt and uncle, who provided a safe and stable home and were willing to adopt them. The Department’s case manager did not consider reunification viable because Mother had not demonstrated sustained sobriety, verified mental-health treatment, medication compliance, or a safe California residence.

Issues Decided

The Eleventh Court of Appeals considered:

Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D).
Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that Mother engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered their physical or emotional well-being under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E).
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest. “Clear and convincing evidence” means proof sufficient to produce in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction that the allegation is true. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 101.007, 161.001(b).

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) focuses principally on the child’s environment. It permits termination when a parent knowingly places or knowingly allows a child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) focuses principally on the parent’s conduct, including a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that exposes the child to physical or emotional danger. Endangerment does not require proof that the child suffered an actual injury; exposure to jeopardy or potential loss is sufficient. A parent’s substance abuse may constitute endangering conduct when it creates instability, impairs judgment, or exposes the child to unsafe people, substances, or circumstances.

For legal sufficiency, the appellate court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the challenged finding was true. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, credits reasonable resolutions of disputed facts in favor of the finding, and disregards evidence the factfinder reasonably could have disbelieved. It may not disregard undisputed evidence contrary to the finding. In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002).

For factual sufficiency, the reviewing court considers the entire record, including disputed evidence contrary to the finding, while giving due deference to the factfinder. Reversal is warranted only when the contrary evidence is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25–26 (Tex. 2002).

Application

The court did not treat Mother’s drug use as an isolated allegation. It considered the relationship between her admitted daily methamphetamine use, positive drug tests, paranoid beliefs, impaired perception, erratic behavior, and decisions affecting the children’s immediate safety. Mother’s conduct caused the children to sleep in a vehicle, be present during an apparent drug transaction, and walk shoeless near a closed business while Mother carried a baseball bat. The home itself became unsafe as Mother carried knives and cut what appeared to be electrical wires while expressing delusional beliefs about intruders, planted drugs, and a purported conspiracy.

Those circumstances supported the subsection (D) finding because the children were knowingly allowed to remain in an unstable and hazardous environment. The relevant “environment” included more than the physical condition of the residence. It encompassed the presence of illegal drugs, Mother’s impaired mental state, unsafe nighttime arrangements, exposure to questionable adults, and the absence of a reliable sober caregiver.

The same evidence supported the subsection (E) finding because Mother’s actions reflected an ongoing course of conduct rather than a single lapse in judgment. Her admitted daily methamphetamine use, positive testing, failure to complete treatment, inconsistent participation in testing, continuing paranoid behavior, and resistance to safety planning allowed the trial court to infer that the danger had not been resolved.

Mother’s move to California did not compel a different result. She did not complete inpatient or outpatient treatment, did not consistently submit to drug testing, did not authorize verification of her asserted mental-health care, and did not cooperate sufficiently for a home study to establish that her residence was appropriate for the children. The trial court was entitled to weigh the lack of objective verification against Mother’s claims of improvement.

The children’s placement with relatives also informed the best-interest analysis. Their aunt and uncle offered a safe, stable home and were willing to adopt, while Mother had not demonstrated that she could provide a consistently sober, medically managed, and verifiably safe environment. Deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations, the appellate court concluded that the record permitted a firm belief or conviction that termination served the children’s best interest.

Holding

The court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D). Mother’s methamphetamine use, paranoia, unsafe home conditions, and decisions to keep the children in a vehicle and expose them to drugs and hazardous circumstances supported the finding that she knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in an endangering environment.

The court also upheld the finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). Mother’s ongoing drug use, erratic behavior, impaired judgment, incomplete treatment, and failure to establish sustained stability constituted a course of conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being.

Finally, the court sustained the best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2). The unresolved risks associated with Mother’s substance abuse and mental health, combined with the stability available in the relatives’ adoptive placement, were sufficient to support termination. The trial court’s final order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For the party alleging endangerment, this case illustrates the value of proving a causal sequence rather than merely establishing that a parent used drugs. Counsel should connect the substance use to impaired judgment, unsafe transportation or housing, exposure to dangerous adults or contraband, disrupted routines, missed treatment, and an inability to formulate or follow a safety plan.

In custody and modification cases, similar evidence may support emergency temporary orders, supervised possession, neutral exchanges, drug-testing protocols, restrictions on unrelated adults, geographic limitations, or an award of exclusive decision-making authority. The requested remedy should be calibrated to the proven risk and supported by evidence showing why less restrictive safeguards would be inadequate.

For the parent responding to allegations of drug use or mental-health instability, self-reported progress will rarely be enough. Objective proof should include complete treatment records, consistent negative testing, prescription records, provider testimony, executed releases, stable housing documentation, and a concrete safety plan. Sporadic compliance may be characterized as unresolved risk rather than rehabilitation.

When a parent relocates during litigation, counsel should anticipate interstate verification problems. The parent should promptly cooperate with home studies, execute releases, identify treatment providers, preserve attendance and testing records, and establish that the new residence is suitable for the children. A move that prevents verification may strengthen the opposing party’s argument that the alleged danger remains unresolved.

Counsel should also distinguish between subsections (D) and (E) in pleadings, trial presentation, and proposed findings. For subsection (D), organize the proof around the conditions and surroundings in which the children were placed. For subsection (E), develop the chronology of the parent’s conduct, emphasizing duration, recurrence, and the connection between that conduct and danger to the children.

Checklists

Build the Endangerment Record

Identify each unsafe condition or surrounding to support a subsection (D) theory.
Develop a chronology of parental conduct to support a subsection (E) theory.
Connect substance use to parenting decisions and child-safety consequences.
Obtain law-enforcement reports, body-camera footage, photographs, recordings, and dispatch records.
Secure complete drug-testing records, including missed, refused, diluted, or adulterated tests.
Obtain treatment admission, attendance, discharge, and completion records.
Interview adult witnesses who personally observed impairment, paranoia, unsafe conduct, or the condition of the residence.
Preserve admissible statements made by the parent and children.
Document the children’s clothing, hygiene, sleeping arrangements, transportation, and access to food and supervision.
Prove the availability and suitability of the proposed placement.

Separate Subsection (D) From Subsection (E)

For subsection (D), identify where the children lived, slept, traveled, and spent time.
Document drugs, weapons, dangerous wiring, unsanitary conditions, unsafe adults, and inadequate supervision.
Establish the parent’s knowledge of the hazardous environment.
For subsection (E), identify repeated or continuing acts rather than relying exclusively on one incident.
Show how drug use, untreated mental-health symptoms, criminal conduct, or instability affected parental judgment.
Present a timeline demonstrating whether the danger continued after Department or court intervention.
Request findings that separately address each predicate ground.

Defend a Parent Accused of Endangerment

Arrange immediate, comprehensive substance-abuse and psychological evaluations.
Advise the client to submit to every requested or court-ordered drug test.
Obtain independent testing when appropriate, but do not substitute it for ordered testing without court approval.
Complete treatment rather than relying on enrollment or partial attendance.
Secure letters and records from qualified treatment providers.
Execute narrowly tailored releases necessary to verify compliance.
Document medication management through prescriptions, testing, and provider records.
Establish safe housing with photographs, a lease, utility records, and third-party testimony.
Remove drugs, weapons, hazardous materials, and unsafe occupants from the residence.
Prepare a detailed safety plan addressing relapse, childcare, transportation, and emergency contacts.
Explain missed services or testing with corroborating evidence rather than unsupported assertions.

Manage an Interstate Relocation

Notify the court and opposing parties as required before relocating.
Determine whether an ICPC or other interstate home study will be necessary.
Provide complete and accurate information for the home-study process.
Maintain continuous treatment and testing across state lines.
Execute authorizations allowing verification of out-of-state services.
Confirm that remote visitation complies with the court’s orders.
Preserve records showing punctual and appropriate participation in virtual visits.
Identify all adults residing in or regularly visiting the new home.
Obtain criminal-history and child-protection clearances when appropriate.
Do not assume relocation will render prior safety evidence irrelevant.

Preserve the Record for Appeal

Offer exhibits supporting both the predicate grounds and best interest.
Obtain rulings on objections and excluded evidence.
Make an offer of proof when material evidence is excluded.
Request sufficiently specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when available.
Address both legal and factual sufficiency in post-judgment and appellate briefing.
Identify undisputed contrary evidence that the appellate court may not disregard.
Explain why disputed evidence is or is not significant under the clear-and-convincing standard.
Challenge each independently sufficient ground with potential collateral consequences.
Ensure the reporter’s record includes all settings of a multi-day final hearing.

Citation

In the Interest of M.L.S. and T.L.S. Jr., Children, No. 11-26-00132-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 22, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~c4b82038-0d25-41da-ab53-0daa157b4624~~

Share this content: