Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy, 01-25-00609-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 312th District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Because the mother failed to challenge every predicate ground found by the trial court—specifically subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P)—the appellate court was required to uphold the termination based on those unchallenged findings, as only one predicate act is necessary to support a judgment under Texas Family Code § 161.001.
Relevance to Family Law
This case serves as a critical procedural reminder for family law litigators regarding the “all or nothing” nature of challenging predicate findings in parental termination appeals. If a trial court findings multiple grounds for termination (e.g., endangerment, failure to comply with a service plan, and substance abuse), the appellant must specifically challenge every single ground; failure to do so renders any successful challenge to a lone ground moot. Furthermore, this opinion reinforces that evidence of chronic, untreated substance abuse and recurring mental health crises provides a nearly insurmountable hurdle for parents when the court applies the Holley factors to determine the best interest of the child.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Mother has five children, three of whom (Zane, Gabriel, and Violet) were the subject of this termination proceeding. The Department of Family and Protective Services (the “Department”) had a history with Mother dating back to 2007, involving numerous referrals for neglectful supervision and physical abuse. Evidence at trial detailed a decade of substance abuse, including the daily use of marijuana and methamphetamines, as well as a history of injecting and snorting heroin. In one notable 2018 incident, Mother overdosed on prescription medication in an attempted suicide while the children were present in the home. The Department most recently intervened in December 2023 after Mother was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. During the four-day bench trial, testimony revealed that the children had been subjected to unsanitary living conditions and physical abuse, and that Mother had consistently struggled with untreated mental illness and drug relapses. Conversely, the children were shown to be thriving in stable, highly motivated foster placements that intended to adopt.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. Additionally, the court examined whether the Mother’s challenge to a single predicate act (constructive abandonment under Subsection N) could sustain an appeal when other predicate grounds remained unchallenged. Finally, the court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Department as the children’s sole managing conservator.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code § 161.001(b), which requires that the Department prove by clear and convincing evidence at least one predicate act and that termination is in the best interest of the child. The court utilized the well-established Holley v. Adams factors to review the best-interest finding, analyzing the children’s desires, their emotional and physical needs, the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, and the stability of the proposed home. Procedurally, the court followed the rule that a single unchallenged predicate finding is sufficient to support a termination decree, provided there is also a sufficient best-interest finding.
Application
In evaluating the predicate grounds, the court noted that the trial court found Mother had committed acts under subsections (D), (E), (N), (O), and (P). However, Mother’s appellate brief only specifically challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding Subsection (N). The court applied the rule that when a parent fails to challenge every ground found by the trial court, the appellate court must accept the unchallenged findings as sufficient to satisfy the predicate act requirement. Consequently, the court turned its full attention to the best-interest analysis. Applying the Holley factors, the court found that Mother’s long-term history of heroin and methamphetamine use, her suicide attempts in the presence of the children, and her failure to maintain stable housing or mental health treatment weighed heavily in favor of termination. The court contrasted this with the children’s significant progress in their foster homes, concluding that the Department had met its burden of proof.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that because Mother did not challenge the trial court’s findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P), those findings were sufficient to satisfy the predicate act requirement of the statute. The court noted that it need not address the merits of Mother’s challenge to Subsection (N) because the other grounds stood undisturbed.
Regarding the best interest of the children, the court held that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient. The court emphasized that a parent’s history of drug use and unstable mental health are highly relevant to the children’s emotional and physical well-being, and Mother’s inability to provide a safe environment outweighed any other factors.
Finally, the court held that because the termination of parental rights was upheld, Mother no longer had any legal rights to the children and therefore could not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the Department as the sole managing conservator.
Practical Application
For the practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of a “scattergun” approach in appellate briefing for termination cases—you must hit every target the trial court provided. Even if the evidence for one ground (like constructive abandonment) is weak, failing to contest the endangerment or service-plan grounds (D, E, or O) will result in an automatic loss on the predicate prong. Strategically, litigators should also note how the court utilized medical records and past Department referrals (even those years old) to establish a “pattern of conduct.” In trial, ensure that you are objecting to the remoteness of such evidence if it does not link to current safety risks, though as seen here, Houston appellate courts are inclined to view historical substance abuse as a predictor of future behavior.
Checklists
Appellate Review of Predicate Grounds
- Compare the Final Decree against the Statement of Points or Brief to ensure every subsection (D, E, O, etc.) is specifically challenged.
- If a ground is not challenged, concede that the predicate prong is satisfied and focus the entire brief on the Holley factors.
- Be mindful of the 2025 legislative changes to Subsection (O) and (P) numbering to ensure your citations match the version of the statute in effect at the time of the order.
Best Interest Evidence Strategy
- Gather all historical DFPS “Investigation” and “Alternative Response” records; even “ruled out” reports can be used to show a pattern of neglectful supervision.
- Cross-examine Department caseworkers specifically on the Holley factors where the Department lacks evidence, such as the children’s specific desires or the “excuses” for acts/omissions.
- In substance abuse cases, focus on the “nexus” between the drug use and the actual endangerment of the child to counter the legal sufficiency of the (D) and (E) findings.
Citation
In the Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., No. 01-25-00609-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~47da9ac5-be2f-4b27-bafd-bf67a93d3552~~
Share this content: