Best-Interest Sufficiency Supports Termination | In re K.A. and S.A. (2026)

In the Interest of K.A. and S.A., Children, 01-26-00336-CV, September 18, 2026.

On appeal from 306th District Court, Galveston County, Texas

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The record showed ongoing cocaine use, missed drug testing, instability in housing and employment, incomplete follow-through with substance-abuse and mental-health services, and a stable adoptive placement meeting the children’s needs under the Holley framework.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its reasoning matters across Texas family litigation because the same evidentiary themes recur in SAPCR modifications, conservatorship fights, supervised-access disputes, and geographic restriction cases. For family-law litigators, the opinion is a useful reminder that courts heavily credit patterns of instability—especially substance abuse, noncompliance with court-ordered services, untreated mental health concerns, domestic-violence exposure, and inability to demonstrate a safe home—while also giving substantial weight to evidence that the child is thriving in a stable placement. In divorce and custody cases, this same proof can drive outcomes on managing conservatorship, possession restrictions, protective measures, and requests for phased reunification.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved after Mother gave birth to premature twins who tested positive for cocaine. Mother admitted she had used cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, and alcohol during pregnancy and acknowledged a drug problem. The case, as tried, concerned two older children, Kirby and Stella, who were placed with their daycare provider, while the twins were placed separately in foster care.

The Department’s evidence did not begin and end with the 2024 removal. The record reflected a longer history of Department involvement tied to substance abuse, domestic violence, and supervision concerns. One older child had previously tested positive for cocaine at birth in 2013, and in a later incident, one child was found alone inside an apartment while another wandered outside unsupervised. Mother also reported a toxic and abusive relationship with Kirby’s father, who had a significant criminal history and continued to be part of the factual picture during the case.

Mother’s service plan required stable housing and employment, substance-abuse treatment, random testing, counseling, and various assessments. The evidence showed partial compliance. She completed some services, including parenting, psychological, and psychiatric assessments, and at least some counseling. But the Department showed that after inpatient treatment she relapsed on cocaine, tested positive in September 2025, and then failed to submit requested tests during the five months before trial. She also stopped attending substance-abuse counseling for three months leading up to trial and did not resume therapy after the relapse.

The Department also presented evidence of instability apart from drug use. Housing was not shown to be appropriate or stable; Mother reported she was living with the maternal grandfather, whose criminal history prevented approval of the home. Employment likewise was not verified despite repeated requests. The caseworker testified that Mother had not mitigated the reasons for removal and had not demonstrated the sustained sobriety the Department required even to consider monitored return.

By contrast, the children’s placement evidence was strong. Foster Mother had cared for Kirby and Stella for approximately 17 months. The children were bonded there, doing well, and receiving appropriate educational, therapeutic, and medical support. Kirby had improved emotionally and academically in a structured environment, and Stella’s needs were being addressed as well. Foster Mother hoped to adopt both children and preserve their bond with the twins and, if appropriate, maintain contact with Mother.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the same best-interest finding.
• Whether evidence of Mother’s continuing substance abuse, missed testing, instability, and incomplete compliance with services permitted the trial court to conclude termination was in the children’s best interest even though Mother completed some services and behaved appropriately during visits.

Rules Applied

Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of both a predicate ground under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest under section 161.001(b)(2). On appeal, legal-sufficiency review asks whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the finding, while factual-sufficiency review examines whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved it in favor of the finding.

The court’s best-interest analysis was guided by the familiar nonexclusive factors from Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976). Those factors include the child’s desires, present and future emotional and physical needs, present and future danger to the child, the parental abilities of the persons seeking custody, available programs to assist them, plans for the child, the stability of the proposed placement, acts or omissions indicating the parent-child relationship is improper, and any excuse for those acts or omissions.

As in many termination appeals, the court treated drug use as probative not just of parental misconduct in the abstract, but of endangerment, impaired judgment, instability, and future risk. Texas appellate courts routinely consider a parent’s continued drug use, relapse after treatment, and refusal or failure to submit testing as substantive evidence supporting a best-interest finding. Partial service-plan compliance does not negate best interest where the central dangers prompting removal remain unremedied.

Application

The appellate court’s reasoning tracks a common but important sufficiency pattern: partial compliance did not overcome evidence that the core risk factors remained in place. Mother could point to completed services and evidence that visits with the children were generally appropriate. But the court looked at whether those services translated into actual risk reduction. On this record, they did not.

The opinion emphasizes that Mother relapsed after treatment, tested positive for cocaine, and then failed to submit to requested testing for months before trial. In Texas family practice, missed tests are rarely neutral. They are typically viewed as evidence the factfinder may treat adversely, particularly when the parent already has a documented history of substance abuse. Here, the court treated Mother’s noncompliance as reinforcing the inference that sobriety had not been achieved.

The court also considered Mother’s untreated or insufficiently addressed mental-health concerns and the unresolved instability in housing and employment. These facts mattered because they bore directly on whether Mother could presently provide a safe, stable environment and whether the risks to the children were likely to continue. The Department did not need to prove absolute parental unfitness in every dimension; it needed clear and convincing evidence that termination, not reunification, best served the children’s welfare. The combination of continued drug-related concerns and basic instability supplied that evidentiary basis.

The placement evidence rounded out the Holley analysis. The children were not in a merely adequate foster setting; they were in a placement where they had shown measurable emotional, developmental, and academic progress. Kirby’s therapist described significant gains associated with structure, boundaries, and stability. The foster placement also offered permanency through adoption and continued sibling connection. That matters strategically in sufficiency review because best-interest findings are often strongest when the Department proves both parental risk and affirmative child-centered benefit from the proposed permanent plan.

The opinion also reflects a point trial lawyers should not miss: evidence that a child loves or is attached to the parent does not defeat termination when the child’s need for safety and stability points the other way. Kirby’s attachment to Mother was acknowledged, but so was his recognition that she was “sick” and could not care for him. The court was entitled to weigh those statements alongside the stability and progress the children had achieved in placement.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Kirby’s and Stella’s best interest under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). Evidence of Mother’s ongoing substance abuse, positive cocaine test, repeated failure to submit requested drug testing, and failure to complete or continue recommended substance-abuse and mental-health services permitted a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that the children would face continuing risk if returned to her care.

The court also held the evidence was factually sufficient. Although Mother completed some services and there was evidence that she acted appropriately during visits, the disputed evidence was not so significant as to prevent the trial court from reasonably concluding that the best-interest finding remained proven by clear and convincing evidence. The children’s progress in a stable placement, the foster mother’s adoption plan, and the unresolved instability in Mother’s housing, employment, and sobriety supported affirmance.

Practical Application

For petitioner’s counsel, this case is a roadmap for framing best-interest proof as a before-and-after narrative: what conditions existed at removal, what services were offered, what changed, what did not change, and how the child has functioned in a safer setting. The strongest record is not merely a compilation of bad facts about the parent; it is a coherent showing that the reasons for removal remain unresolved and that the child is benefiting from a concrete permanency plan.

For parent-side counsel, the opinion is a caution that “substantial compliance” is often too thin if the most important problem—usually sobriety, violence, or chronic instability—remains inadequately addressed. Trial strategy should focus on objective proof of sustained change: clean tests over time, resumed and completed counseling after relapse, verified housing, verified income, medication compliance where relevant, and corroborated disengagement from dangerous relationships. Without that proof, completed classes can look formal rather than transformative.

In private custody litigation, the same principles apply even when termination is not sought. Where one parent seeks sole managing conservatorship, supervised possession, a drug-testing protocol, or restrictions on access, this case supports the argument that relapse, missed testing, unstable housing, and unresolved mental-health concerns are not isolated impeachment points; they are best-interest evidence. Conversely, for the accused parent, the lesson is to build a record of verifiable stability early and consistently rather than rely on general assurances at final hearing.

The case is also useful on evidentiary emphasis. Therapists, CASA volunteers, foster placements, and caseworkers each contributed a different part of the best-interest mosaic. Practitioners should think in terms of corroboration across witnesses: one witness for parental noncompliance, another for the child’s emotional condition, another for the placement’s stability, and another for the permanency plan. Appellate durability usually follows that kind of layered record.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record for the Petitioner

• Prove the original reasons for removal with precision.
• Tie each service-plan requirement to a specific risk the Department or petitioner sought to remediate.
• Offer documentary proof of positive drug tests, missed tests, refusals, and gaps in testing.
• Show whether treatment was completed and whether relapse occurred after treatment.
• Establish whether the parent resumed counseling or therapy after relapse or crisis.
• Verify housing with addresses, lease records, home-study results, and suitability evidence.
• Verify employment with pay stubs, employer letters, or other records.
• Present testimony about domestic violence, criminal history, or unsafe associates where relevant.
• Develop testimony from therapists, CASA, teachers, or caregivers about the child’s progress in placement.
• Present a specific permanency plan, including adoption intent and sibling-contact plan if applicable.

Defending Against a Best-Interest Termination Finding

• Produce a continuous series of negative drug tests, not isolated clean tests.
• Explain every missed test with supporting documentation where possible.
• Document re-engagement in treatment immediately after any relapse.
• Present records showing completion of all recommended substance-abuse aftercare.
• Offer current proof of therapy attendance, psychiatric follow-up, and medication compliance if relevant.
• Verify stable housing with a lease, utility bills, photographs, and testimony about household members.
• Verify lawful, stable employment with pay records and employer confirmation.
• Show separation from violent or drug-using partners with protective orders, changed residences, and corroborating witnesses.
• Offer testimony demonstrating insight into prior conduct and concrete behavioral change.
• Present a realistic reunification plan with timeline, childcare, transportation, and support network details.

Using This Case in Private SAPCR and Modification Litigation

• Request drug testing early when substance abuse is a central concern.
• Use missed or refused tests as substantive best-interest evidence, not just impeachment.
• Frame instability in housing and employment as child-centered risk evidence.
• Tie untreated mental-health conditions to parenting impact with competent testimony.
• Use school, therapy, and medical records to show how the child is functioning in the current placement.
• Develop evidence of the child’s need for routine, structure, and predictability.
• If seeking restrictions short of termination, ask for step-up possession tied to objective benchmarks.
• If defending, propose measurable safeguards such as testing, counseling, and supervised transition periods.

Preserving the Record for Appeal

• Make sure the service plan is admitted or otherwise clearly before the court.
• Admit drug-test results, testing logs, referrals, and discharge summaries.
• Elicit dates for every key event: relapse, last clean test, last positive test, missed tests, service completion, and last counseling session.
• Obtain direct testimony on how each unresolved concern affects present and future child safety.
• Present evidence of the child’s current needs and how the placement is meeting them.
• Clarify the permanency goal and whether adoption is available.
• Address favorable evidence for the parent directly so the record shows why the factfinder could still find best interest.
• In findings-sensitive cases, request and review findings to sharpen appellate issues.

Citation

In the Interest of K.A. and S.A., Children, No. 01-26-00336-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 18, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~8388aa02-2c6f-401f-afc8-8cbdff150d73~~