In the Interest of V.J.-A. II, a Child, 11-26-00147-CV, October 29, 2026.
On appeal from 326th District Court, Taylor County, Texas
Synopsis
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The child’s substantial methamphetamine exposure, Mother’s continuing positive drug tests and repeated testing refusals, her unstable housing, and her failure to demonstrate a safe, drug-free environment permitted the factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was warranted.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this is a parental-termination case, its evidentiary lessons extend to custody and divorce proceedings involving allegations of drug use, endangerment, or unstable housing. A litigant’s pattern of missed tests, testing refusals, unexplained positive results, and resistance to home inspections can become more persuasive than isolated promises of sobriety or partial compliance with court-ordered services. In conservatorship litigation, similar evidence may affect possession restrictions, supervised visitation, geographic limitations, and allocation of decision-making authority, even though ordinary custody determinations do not require the clear-and-convincing standard applicable to termination.
The decision also underscores the value of linking parental conduct to the child’s circumstances rather than presenting substance use in the abstract. In divorce cases, counsel should evaluate whether drug-related evidence bears on temporary orders, exclusive use of the residence, protective provisions, or the safety of property and funds used for the child’s support. The opinion does not establish a rule for dividing the marital estate, but the same conduct may have collateral consequences when it results in dissipation, unsafe living conditions, employment instability, or requests for injunctions protecting community property.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department became involved after the child reported at school that Mother’s boyfriend had picked him up and shaken him. During the investigation, Mother denied drug use and represented that she was sober, but she failed to appear for requested drug testing. The child was eventually tested and returned a positive result for methamphetamine at a level of 35,679, which the Department’s investigator described as extremely high.
The Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship in March 2025. Testing shortly after removal showed that Mother’s hair follicle was positive for methamphetamine. Mother did not test again until October 2025, when another hair-follicle test was positive for methamphetamine. She attributed that result to a one-time relapse. Her December 2025 urinalysis was positive for marihuana. According to the case manager, Mother refused requested testing on at least twelve occasions and never produced a negative test when she did submit to testing.
Mother’s testing noncompliance also affected visitation. Her visits were suspended in September 2025 because she would not submit to testing. Although visitation was conditionally reinstated in December, she continued to refuse testing despite the Department’s offers to transport her to the testing facility.
Mother’s service plan required her to maintain a safe and stable home and permit announced and unannounced visits. At one point, she lived at the motel where she worked. She later refused an announced visit and was unsuccessful in arranging other meetings with the case manager. Mother testified that she had moved out of state and experienced homelessness, which she offered as an explanation for not completing services.
The record also contained evidence of Mother’s prior history. The child had previously been removed as an infant after Mother used illegal drugs during pregnancy. Another of Mother’s children tested positive for methamphetamine and marihuana at birth in 2023, resulting in termination of Mother’s parental rights to that child. Mother had six biological children, none of whom lived with her.
Following removal, the child’s behavior improved, he excelled academically, and he participated in gymnastics. He received treatment for ADHD and attended therapy. After an initial foster placement ended because the foster family moved out of state, the child was placed in a Dallas foster home identified as a potential long-term placement. The Department’s permanency goal was adoption, and both the case manager and the child’s CASA recommended termination.
The trial court found predicate grounds under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), based on endangering conditions and conduct. Mother did not challenge those findings on appeal. Her sole appellate issue attacked the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding.
Issues Decided
-
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).
-
Whether the evidence was factually sufficient, considering the entire record and the evidence contrary to termination, to support the best-interest finding.
Rules Applied
Texas Family Code § 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” is the degree of proof that produces in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the allegations. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 101.007, 161.001(b).
The court emphasized that termination proceedings impose a high evidentiary bar. Citing In re K.N. and In re H.S., it recognized that the Department must satisfy the heightened clear-and-convincing standard because termination permanently severs the parent-child relationship.
For legal sufficiency, the reviewing court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. Under In re J.W. and In re J.F.C., the court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, assumes that the factfinder resolved reasonably disputed facts in favor of the finding, and disregards evidence the factfinder reasonably could have disbelieved. The reviewing court may not, however, disregard undisputed evidence contrary to the finding.
For factual sufficiency, the court weighs disputed evidence contrary to the finding against the evidence supporting it. Under In re A.C., In re J.O.A., and In re C.H., the question is whether, after considering the entire record and giving appropriate deference to the factfinder, the contrary evidence is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction.
Best interest is evaluated through the child-centered inquiry reflected in the Holley considerations and the statutory framework governing the child’s present and future safety. Relevant considerations include the child’s needs, present and future danger, parental abilities, the stability of the proposed placement, the parent’s acts or omissions, and any explanation for those acts or omissions. Evidence supporting a predicate endangerment finding may also inform the separate best-interest analysis.
Application
The appellate court evaluated Mother’s conduct as an ongoing pattern rather than as a single positive test. The child’s extremely high methamphetamine result supplied direct evidence of exposure to a dangerous controlled substance. Mother then tested positive for methamphetamine after the child’s removal, tested positive again months later, and subsequently tested positive for marihuana. Her repeated refusals to test prevented her from establishing sustained sobriety and permitted the factfinder to assess her claimed recovery against her documented conduct.
Mother’s explanations did not require a different result. She testified that she preferred to pay for testing herself, but she produced no independent test results. She characterized one positive result as a one-time relapse and testified that she last used methamphetamine in May or June 2025, yet the record contained a later positive hair-follicle result and continuing refusals. The trial court, as the sole judge of credibility, was entitled to resolve those conflicts against her.
The court also considered whether Mother had demonstrated the ability to provide a safe and stable home. Although she completed some service-plan requirements, her housing instability, period of homelessness, resistance to home visits, incomplete services, and inability to demonstrate a drug-free residence weighed against reunification. Her prior child-welfare history—including drug use during pregnancy and a prior termination following another child’s drug exposure—provided additional context for assessing future danger and the likelihood of lasting change.
On the other side of the best-interest analysis, the child improved after removal. He was performing well academically, participating in activities, receiving therapy and ADHD treatment, and living in a placement that was being considered as a long-term option. The Department pursued adoption, and both the case manager and CASA supported termination.
The placement’s recent change did not defeat the finding. Best interest did not turn on proof of a finalized adoption or a perfect long-term placement. The trial court could compare the child’s progress and access to services in care with Mother’s unresolved drug use, testing refusals, and lack of a verified safe home. On the entire record, the evidence favoring termination was sufficient to overcome Mother’s contrary testimony and partial service-plan compliance.
Holding
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that Mother’s continuing substance abuse, repeated refusal to test, housing instability, and inability to provide a verified drug-free environment presented a continuing danger to the child.
The court also held that the evidence was factually sufficient. Mother’s explanations, partial compliance, and claimed cessation of methamphetamine use were not so significant that the trial court could not reasonably reach a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Eleventh Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the termination order.
Practical Application
For Department’s counsel, the case illustrates the importance of proving a chronology. Rather than relying on a generalized allegation of substance abuse, establish the child’s exposure, each testing request, each refusal, each positive result, the assistance offered to facilitate testing, and the consequences of noncompliance. This creates a record from which the factfinder can assess both present danger and the likelihood of future instability.
For parent’s counsel, testing refusals should be treated as an urgent litigation problem. If the client disputes the Department’s testing protocol, counsel should promptly seek a court-approved alternative rather than allow repeated refusals to accumulate. Privately obtained tests should use defensible collection procedures and should be produced promptly. Assertions of sobriety carry little weight when the client does not provide objective, longitudinal proof.
In custody disputes arising from divorce or a modification proceeding, counsel should connect drug evidence to conservatorship and possession issues. Relevant questions include whether the child was exposed, whether the parent drove with the child after using substances, whether drugs were accessible in the home, whether the parent complied with testing orders, and whether safeguards such as supervised possession or a sober monitor can adequately protect the child.
The opinion also demonstrates that completing selected services does not neutralize unresolved safety concerns. Practitioners should distinguish between task completion and behavioral change. Attendance at counseling or parenting classes may have limited persuasive force if the parent continues to test positive, refuses monitoring, or cannot provide access to a stable residence.
Finally, appellate preservation and briefing should account for the distinct termination elements. Mother did not challenge the predicate findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), leaving only best interest for review. Because the evidence supporting endangerment can also inform best interest, an unchallenged predicate record may materially narrow the appellant’s path to reversal.
Checklists
Building a Best-Interest Record
- Identify the specific best-interest considerations supported by each witness and exhibit.
- Connect parental conduct to the child’s physical safety, emotional condition, and future needs.
- Introduce the child’s complete drug-test results, including levels, methodology, and explanatory testimony.
- Establish a dated chronology of the parent’s positive tests, negative tests, missed tests, and refusals.
- Document transportation, scheduling assistance, reminders, and other accommodations offered for testing.
- Prove the condition and stability of the parent’s residence through inspections, photographs, records, or testimony.
- Develop evidence concerning the child’s progress, therapy, education, activities, and medical care after removal.
- Address permanency plans and placement stability without overstating the certainty of adoption.
- Obtain clear recommendations from the case manager, guardian ad litem, and CASA.
- Explain how predicate-ground evidence also bears on future danger and best interest.
Representing a Parent Accused of Drug Use
- Advise the client immediately that missed or refused tests may be treated as significant adverse evidence.
- Obtain prompt baseline testing and establish a consistent schedule of follow-up tests.
- Seek a court-approved alternative if the client challenges the requested facility or testing method.
- Preserve chain-of-custody records and laboratory documentation for independent testing.
- Produce favorable independent results rather than merely testifying that testing occurred.
- Investigate environmental-exposure explanations with qualified expert testimony when scientifically supportable.
- Prepare the client to explain every missed test, positive result, and testing gap with corroborating evidence.
- Develop a documented relapse-prevention plan, including treatment, meetings, sponsorship, and aftercare.
- Demonstrate behavioral change over time rather than relying solely on completion certificates.
- Move promptly to restore visitation after satisfying testing conditions.
Proving a Safe and Stable Home
- Confirm the client has housing that permits the child to reside there.
- Obtain a lease, utility records, photographs, and testimony establishing continuity of residence.
- Ensure the client permits court-ordered announced and unannounced home visits.
- Identify every adult residing in or frequently visiting the home.
- Investigate household members for criminal history, drug use, domestic violence, and Department history.
- Document appropriate sleeping arrangements, utilities, food, transportation, and medication security.
- Address periods of homelessness or motel residence directly and with a concrete transition plan.
- Establish stable employment or another reliable means of meeting the child’s needs.
- Present a realistic childcare and school-transportation plan.
- Verify that the residence is drug-free and free from unsafe persons.
Preparing a Sufficiency Challenge
- Separate the predicate-ground analysis from the best-interest analysis.
- Determine whether every adverse finding that could support the judgment has been challenged.
- Identify undisputed evidence contrary to termination that the appellate court may not disregard.
- Explain why disputed contrary evidence is significant under the factual-sufficiency standard.
- Address the factfinder’s credibility authority rather than asking the appellate court to reweigh testimony.
- Analyze the entire course of conduct, not isolated favorable facts.
- Confront positive tests and refusals directly instead of relying only on service-plan completion.
- Evaluate whether the child’s placement evidence supports stability, merely temporary care, or both.
- Preserve objections, offers of proof, and excluded exhibits in the trial court.
- Account for the accelerated appellate timetable governing termination cases.
Managing Drug Evidence in Divorce and Custody Litigation
- Request temporary testing provisions with clear deadlines and approved facilities.
- Specify the consequences of missed, diluted, altered, or refused tests.
- Seek safeguards proportionate to the evidence, including supervised possession or sober monitors.
- Connect substance use to parenting conduct and child safety rather than relying on moral condemnation.
- Obtain admissible business-record affidavits and laboratory records.
- Consider expert testimony when test levels, detection windows, or passive exposure are disputed.
- Track compliance longitudinally throughout the case.
- Request home-access provisions when residential safety is contested.
- Preserve evidence relevant to dissipation, employment disruption, or misuse of community funds.
- Draft final orders with objective conditions for expanding or restricting possession.
Citation
In re V.J.-A. II, No. 11-26-00147-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~d8030563-bb8e-43e2-ae80-d33ce09a1ddd~~
Share this content: