Section 161.001(b)(2) Best Interest Sufficiency | In the Interest of A.D. (2026)

In the Interest of A.D., S.R., and K.A., Children, 11-25-00383-CV, June 18, 2026.

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

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the Mother’s parental rights. In the opinion text provided, the court framed the appeal as a single sufficiency challenge to the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2), restated the governing clear-and-convincing and Holley standards, and recited evidence that included methamphetamine use, criminal history, prior Department involvement, and incomplete services.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case rather than a SAPCR modification or divorce-custody dispute, its practical significance for Texas family litigators is broader. The opinion’s discussion of best-interest proof reinforces familiar themes that recur across family cases: trial courts may assess future risk from past conduct, instability and substance use remain central best-interest facts, and a record developed for endangerment issues may also carry substantial weight in broader conservatorship and possession litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appeal arose from an order terminating the Mother’s parental rights to A.D., S.R., and K.A. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the alleged and unknown fathers, but only the Mother appealed.

According to the opinion text provided, the trial court found predicate grounds under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E): that the Mother knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings, and that she engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being. The trial court also found that termination was in the children’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2).

The evidence section of the excerpt reflects that the Mother committed an offense for possession of methamphetamine in 2018 and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. In 2020, the Department was granted temporary managing conservatorship of seven-year-old A.D. due to the Mother’s continued methamphetamine use and domestic violence between the Mother and her then-boyfriend. In June 2021, while A.D.’s case was pending, the Mother gave birth to S.R., who tested positive for methamphetamine and marihuana. S.R. was removed and placed with the Mother’s grandmother, who was already caring for A.D.

The opinion further states that the Mother was adjudicated guilty in April 2022 of methamphetamine possession after violating conditions of community supervision. Final orders were then issued in the earlier termination suits appointing the Department permanent managing conservator of A.D. and S.R., designating the Mother possessory conservator, ordering that the children remain in the grandmother’s care, and terminating the parental rights of A.D.’s father and S.R.’s father.

The excerpt also states that from 2022 to 2023, the Department gave the Mother the opportunity to secure stable, drug-free housing and demonstrate sobriety, but in early 2023 she stopped participating in services. The provided text cuts off at that point, so any additional facts or analysis beyond that point are not available in the excerpt.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of the Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

The court stated and applied the following governing rules and authorities in the opinion text provided:

• Termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b); § 101.007.
• To terminate parental rights, the factfinder must find both a predicate ground under Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2).
• For legal sufficiency review, the appellate court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022).
• For factual sufficiency review, the appellate court weighs disputed contrary evidence against the evidence favoring the finding and determines whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form 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).
• No unique set of best-interest factors must be proved, and proof is not restricted to any specific factor or factors. In re L.C.C., 667 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023, pet. denied); In re J.S., 687 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.).
• Courts may use the non-exclusive Holley factors to guide best-interest analysis. Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976).
• The Department need not prove every Holley factor; in some circumstances, evidence of only one factor may suffice. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.
• The same evidence supporting one or more predicate grounds may also be probative of best interest. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28; In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied).
• The absence of evidence on some Holley considerations does not preclude a best-interest finding, particularly where the evidence indicates that the parent-child relationship and the parent’s conduct endangered the children’s safety and well-being. C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27.
• A factfinder may measure future conduct by past conduct, may infer that past endangering conduct may recur, and may infer from a parent’s past inability to meet a child’s needs an inability or unwillingness to meet those needs in the future. J.S., 687 S.W.3d at 548; In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

Application

Because the excerpt is truncated before the court’s full merits analysis, the safest reading is that the court laid out a conventional best-interest framework and identified the categories of evidence that would be relevant to that framework. The opinion expressly ties best-interest review to the clear-and-convincing standard, the Holley factors, and the principle that evidence supporting endangerment findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) may also inform the separate best-interest determination.

Within that framework, the opinion’s fact recitation highlights several recurring evidentiary themes: methamphetamine possession, continued methamphetamine use, domestic violence in an earlier Department case, a newborn testing positive for methamphetamine and marihuana, adjudication of guilt after violation of community supervision, and the Department’s later efforts to allow the Mother to obtain stable and drug-free housing and demonstrate sobriety. The authorities the court cited support using that type of evidence to evaluate present and future danger, parental abilities, stability, and whether past conduct permits an inference of future risk. But because the provided text ends before the court’s full analysis, it is more accurate to say the opinion identifies those facts and the governing analytical tools than to attribute a more detailed application rationale than the excerpt shows.

Holding

The opinion text provided confirms that the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the Mother’s parental rights. It also confirms that the Mother raised a single appellate issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the best-interest finding.

Beyond that, the excerpt does not include the court’s completed application section, so it would overstate the available text to describe the court’s precise legal-sufficiency or factual-sufficiency reasoning in detail. What the excerpt does show is that the court treated the case as a best-interest sufficiency appeal, set out the governing standards, and then recited evidence relevant to that inquiry before affirming the order.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers, this opinion is a useful reminder that best-interest records are rarely built from standalone best-interest evidence. The authorities cited by the court reinforce that evidence developed to prove endangerment under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) can also do substantial work on Section 161.001(b)(2). In practice, that means the Department and intervenors should present a tightly connected narrative showing how drug use, criminal history, housing instability, failed services, and prior Department history bear on current and future risk to the child.

For parents’ counsel, the opinion underscores the danger of leaving the Department’s chronology unanswered. When the record contains prior drug-related criminal history, a child born with positive toxicology, and evidence that services were not completed, appellate review becomes heavily shaped by deference to the factfinder and by the principle that future conduct may be inferred from past conduct. The response at trial must therefore do more than dispute isolated allegations; it must offer a coherent explanation, documentary corroboration, and present-tense evidence of stability, sobriety, and follow-through.

The case also matters outside termination practice. In contested conservatorship and modification litigation, lawyers routinely litigate best interest through overlapping facts: substance use, violence, housing instability, prior CPS history, and compliance with court-ordered services or treatment. The opinion’s cited standards are therefore worth keeping in your trial notebook even when termination is not at issue.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record for the Movant

• Plead and prove both the predicate ground and best interest as separate elements.
• Develop a timeline tying substance use, criminal proceedings, Department involvement, and service-plan performance together.
• Introduce evidence showing how past conduct affects present and future danger to the child.
• Use placement evidence to address stability, safety, and the child’s ongoing needs.
• Do not assume every Holley factor must be proved; focus on the factors the evidence genuinely supports.
• Connect endangerment evidence expressly to best interest rather than treating the link as self-evident.
• Preserve the record with clear testimony about services offered, services completed, and services abandoned.

Defending Against a Best-Interest Case for the Parent

• Confront the Department’s chronology directly rather than treating each event as isolated.
• Offer specific evidence of current sobriety, including dates, treatment history, testing, and relapse-prevention measures if available.
• Present concrete housing and employment evidence rather than general assurances of improvement.
• Explain any gaps in services with admissible evidence and corroboration where possible.
• Develop testimony on the parent’s present ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.
• Address prior criminal or CPS history with precision and documentation.
• Preserve both legal- and factual-sufficiency complaints in a way consistent with the governing standards.

Using This Case in Non-Termination Family Litigation

• Cite the opinion’s discussion of best-interest principles when arguing that past conduct informs future risk.
• Use overlapping evidence categories—drug use, instability, criminal history, and compliance failures—to frame conservatorship risk.
• Be prepared to distinguish termination burdens from ordinary SAPCR burdens.
• Build a record showing how the challenged conduct affects the child, not just the opposing parent.
• Use the Holley framework selectively when it helps organize best-interest proof in custody disputes.

Citation

In the Interest of A.D., S.R., and K.A., Children, No. 11-25-00383-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Eastland June 18, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion

~~b957916e-7e86-4334-9ac5-f5239ae6f5ee~~