Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) Service-Plan Noncompliance | In re L.M.C. (2026)

In the Interest of L.M.C., a Child, 13-26-00433-CV, October 29, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) because clear and convincing evidence showed that Father failed to comply with material requirements of the court-ordered service plan. Repeated methamphetamine-positive tests, numerous refusals to test, continued drug use after treatment, and failure to complete the required substance-abuse program supported the judgment despite Father’s completion certificates and evidence of improved housing and employment.

Relevance to Family Law

Although In re L.M.C. is a parental-termination case, its evidentiary lessons extend to custody and modification litigation involving substance abuse, family violence, supervised possession, or compliance-based conditions. A litigant cannot ordinarily overcome documented noncompliance merely by producing certificates, offering explanations, or demonstrating progress in unrelated areas; counsel must connect claimed compliance to the substance of the court’s order and to the parent’s present ability to provide a safe environment.

The decision does not alter the statutory standards governing divorce property division. It is nevertheless relevant when substance abuse or family violence affects temporary orders, conservatorship, possession, injunctions, reimbursement claims, or the credibility of a spouse seeking discretionary relief. The case also underscores the importance of building a dated, element-specific record rather than relying on generalized assertions that a party has “substantially complied.”

Case Summary

Fact Summary

L.M.C. was born in March 2024 and tested positive for methamphetamine, heroin, and other opioids shortly after birth. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated emergency-removal proceedings and was appointed the child’s temporary sole managing conservator. The Department identified concerns involving parental drug use, unstable living conditions, and domestic violence.

Father’s court-ordered service plan required him to attend scheduled visits, complete parenting, domestic-violence-prevention, and substance-abuse services, submit to random drug testing, and refrain from criminal activity. The plan expressly advised that a failure to test would be treated as a positive result.

Father’s early visitation history was inconsistent. According to the Department’s evidence, he attended only three of fourteen scheduled visits before his July 2024 arrest. He was then incarcerated for approximately six months after being arrested for assaulting a former spouse. Father completed parenting and domestic-violence-prevention programs while incarcerated and later presented evidence of housing, employment, and insurance.

The central problem was Father’s continued substance abuse and failure to comply with testing and treatment requirements. After a July 2025 permanency hearing, the trial court ordered him to undergo inpatient substance-abuse treatment and submit to a drug test. His urinalysis was positive for methamphetamine, resulting in suspension of visitation.

The court later reinstated visitation after Father’s drug levels decreased and his employment and housing improved. The Department subsequently sought another suspension, however, based on Father’s repeated refusals to test, his admission that he had replaced methamphetamine with marijuana, and reports that he fell asleep during four consecutive visits.

At trial, the Department presented evidence that Father completed only nine of twenty-one requested drug tests. Six of those nine tests were positive for methamphetamine. Father offered varying explanations for the missed tests, including Ramadan, insufficient hair for follicle testing, and his belief that testing was pointless because he would not regain custody.

Father also produced a certificate associated with an intensive outpatient substance-abuse program. The evidence showed, however, that he had completed only one-half hour of a program requiring more than fifty hours of individual and group counseling. Father admitted using methamphetamine after the program and agreed that the program had not been helpful. He characterized his program certificates as effectively “just a piece of paper” and could not identify what he had learned from the parenting classes.

The record additionally included Father’s history of violence against women, vulgar communications with the Department’s caseworker, limited visitation, and diminished bond with the child. L.M.C. remained with the foster family with whom she had been placed following removal.

Issues Decided

Whether legally sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) based on Father’s failure to comply with the court-ordered service plan.
Whether factually sufficient evidence supported termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(O).
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in L.M.C.’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) authorizes termination when the Department proves that the parent failed to comply with provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary to obtain the return of a child who:

was removed under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect;
remained in the Department’s permanent or temporary managing conservatorship for at least nine months as a result of that removal; and
was not returned because the parent failed to comply with the applicable court-ordered requirements.

The Department must prove at least one statutory predicate ground and the child’s best interest by clear and convincing evidence. “Clear and convincing evidence” is the degree of proof that produces in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.

In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, assumes the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of the finding when it reasonably could do so, and disregards contrary evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved. Factual-sufficiency review requires consideration of the entire record, including disputed evidence, to determine whether the contrary evidence is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction.

Under § 161.001(b)(2), termination must also be in the child’s best interest. That determination may be informed by the nonexclusive Holley factors, including the child’s needs, present and future danger, the parent’s abilities, available programs, plans for the child, stability, acts or omissions indicating an improper parent-child relationship, and any explanations for those acts or omissions. Evidence supporting a predicate ground may also bear on best interest.

Application

The court treated substance-abuse treatment and drug testing as material components of the orders governing reunification. The evidence did not show an isolated missed appointment or an ambiguous misunderstanding. It showed a sustained pattern: Father completed fewer than half of the requested tests, tested positive for methamphetamine on six of the nine tests he did complete, refused or failed to test on multiple occasions, and admitted using methamphetamine after purportedly completing treatment.

The completion certificates did not compel a finding of compliance. The substance-abuse certificate was undermined by evidence that Father completed only one-half hour of a program requiring more than fifty hours. His own testimony further weakened the certificates’ probative value. He admitted that treatment had not been helpful, acknowledged using methamphetamine afterward, and could not identify meaningful lessons obtained from the services he claimed to have completed.

Father’s explanations for missed testing likewise did not negate the finding. The service plan warned that a refusal or failure to test would be treated as a positive result. Moreover, the trial court, as factfinder, was entitled to evaluate Father’s explanations against his positive tests, continued drug use, inconsistent visitation, and admission that he stopped testing because he did not see the point.

Father’s improved employment, housing, and insurance constituted favorable evidence, but they did not conclusively establish compliance with the orders necessary for the child’s return. The trial court could reasonably determine that progress in those areas did not offset unresolved methamphetamine use, incomplete treatment, repeated refusals to test, and conduct during visitation that raised concerns about his ability to supervise the child safely.

The same evidence was relevant to best interest. Continued methamphetamine use, failure to complete meaningful treatment, inconsistent visitation, family-violence history, and the absence of a sustained parent-child bond supported concerns about Father’s present and future parenting ability. The trial court was permitted to weigh those concerns against Father’s evidence of employment, housing, and partial completion of services.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O). Father’s repeated positive methamphetamine tests, refusals to submit to testing, continued drug use after treatment, and failure to complete the required substance-abuse program permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that he did not comply with the court-ordered requirements necessary to obtain L.M.C.’s return.

The court also upheld the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). Viewed together, Father’s unresolved substance abuse, incomplete treatment, inconsistent visitation, violence-related history, and limited bond with L.M.C. supported the trial court’s determination that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the termination order.

Practical Application

For Department counsel, the case demonstrates the value of proving noncompliance requirement by requirement. The strongest record will include the signed service plan, the order incorporating or approving it, proof that the parent received and understood the requirements, testing requests, laboratory reports, attendance records, treatment-hour requirements, discharge summaries, and admissions from the parent.

For parents’ counsel, In re L.M.C. illustrates why certificates must be audited rather than accepted at face value. Counsel should determine whether the provider was approved, whether every required hour and component was completed, whether the client was successfully discharged, and whether later conduct contradicts the claimed benefit of the program. A certificate showing nominal completion may become damaging if cross-examination reveals that the client completed only a fraction of the required services.

Missed drug tests should be addressed contemporaneously. If a parent has a legitimate medical, religious, transportation, employment, or scheduling obstacle, counsel should document it immediately, notify the Department in writing, request an alternative testing method, and seek clarification or modification from the court. Silence followed by a trial-stage explanation is unlikely to carry the same weight as contemporaneous documentation and a prompt attempt to comply.

In custody and modification proceedings outside the termination context, counsel should use the same disciplined approach. When substance abuse bears on conservatorship or possession, build a chronology connecting testing results, refusals, treatment participation, relapses, visitation conduct, and the requested protective order. Conversely, a parent accused of ongoing use should create an affirmative recovery record through consistent negative testing, verified treatment, relapse-prevention work, sponsor or counselor testimony, and safe, attentive visitation.

Finally, practitioners should distinguish between technical and material noncompliance without assuming that “substantial compliance” will defeat a § 161.001(b)(1)(O) ground. Where the uncompleted services directly concern the condition that placed the child at risk—particularly methamphetamine use, treatment, and testing—the omission is likely to be treated as central rather than collateral.

Checklists

Proving a § 161.001(b)(1)(O) Ground

Obtain the signed order specifically establishing the actions required for reunification.
Establish that the child was removed under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect.
Prove that the child remained in the Department’s conservatorship for the statutory period.
Identify each material service-plan requirement.
Match each requirement to admissible proof of compliance or noncompliance.
Introduce every drug-testing request, no-show, refusal, and confirmed result.
Establish that the parent received notice that a missed or refused test would be treated as positive.
Obtain provider testimony or business records showing required and completed treatment hours.
Distinguish enrollment, attendance, completion, and successful discharge.
Connect the uncompleted requirement to the safety concern that led to removal.
Preserve proof that the parent understood what was required and how to comply.

Defending a Parent Accused of Noncompliance

Compare the service plan with the operative court order.
Confirm that each alleged requirement was specifically ordered.
Create a dated compliance chart for every service and testing request.
Verify the accuracy and admissibility of all laboratory results.
Investigate whether missed tests resulted from inadequate notice or logistical impossibility.
Document medical, religious, employment, transportation, or scheduling conflicts contemporaneously.
Request alternative testing promptly when the designated method is unavailable.
Obtain complete provider records rather than relying solely on certificates.
Prove the number of hours completed and the nature of the services received.
Address relapse directly through renewed treatment and consistent testing.
Present evidence explaining how services changed the parent’s behavior and protective capacity.
Seek clarification or modification before an unclear requirement becomes alleged noncompliance.

Auditing Substance-Abuse Evidence

Confirm the specimen type, collection date, chain of custody, and laboratory methodology.
Separate positive results from presumptive screens and confirmed tests.
Identify missed tests and determine whether the order permits an adverse inference.
Chart drug levels over time without overstating what changing levels establish.
Obtain records of assessments, treatment recommendations, attendance, and discharge status.
Determine whether the parent completed inpatient, outpatient, or aftercare requirements.
Investigate admissions of post-treatment use.
Examine whether conduct during visitation is consistent with impairment or another documented condition.
Prepare the provider or caseworker to explain why the services were material to reunification.
Avoid treating a certificate as conclusive proof of substantive completion.

Building the Best-Interest Record

Document the child’s present placement, stability, and needs.
Establish the quality and consistency of the parent’s visitation.
Address the parent-child bond with specific observations rather than conclusions.
Connect substance abuse to present and future safety concerns.
Develop evidence concerning family violence and criminal conduct.
Compare the parent’s plan for the child with the Department’s permanency plan.
Present evidence of the parent’s housing, employment, support network, and caregiving abilities.
Explain whether services produced meaningful behavioral change.
Address favorable and unfavorable evidence directly.
Tie the evidence to the applicable best-interest considerations.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Errors

Do not stop testing because the case appears unfavorable.
Do not assume that missed tests will be excused without contemporaneous documentation.
Do not rely on certificates without confirming that all required hours were completed.
Do not continue using controlled substances after treatment while claiming successful rehabilitation.
Do not minimize the importance of court-ordered services during testimony.
Do not characterize required programs as merely paperwork.
Do not permit hostile communications with caseworkers or opposing parties to enter the record.
Do not ignore visitation attendance, punctuality, or attentiveness.
Do not wait until trial to explain months of noncompliance.
Do not expect progress in housing or employment to offset unresolved safety concerns automatically.

Citation

In re L.M.C., No. 13-26-00433-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~13938f91-f9d7-4391-adb1-4506c0c5c54e~~

Share this content: