Fourteenth Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Based on Unchallenged Endangerment Finding and Best Interest Findings

Memorandum Opinion by Justice McLaughlin, 14-25-00708-CV, January 27, 2026.

On appeal from the 315th District Court of Harris County.

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decree terminating parental rights, holding that the appellant’s concession of a predicate finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) rendered challenges to other predicate grounds moot. The Court further determined that the Mother’s failure to address chronic substance abuse and mental health issues, despite partial compliance with a service plan, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law practitioner, this case serves as a critical reminder of the “one-predicate” rule and the strategic peril of appellate concessions. While a parent may satisfy the “tangible” requirements of a service plan—such as securing housing and income—these achievements are often insufficient to overcome the Holley factors when behavioral and psychological instability persist. This opinion reinforces that evidence of untreated mental health disorders and a history of domestic violence are heavily weighted in the best-interest analysis, frequently eclipsing recent efforts at material stability.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department of Family and Protective Services intervened after the Mother removed her eighteen-month-old child from a hospital against medical advice while the child was still receiving treatment for a head injury and a facial laceration. The subsequent investigation revealed a volatile environment characterized by domestic violence and untreated mental health issues. During the pendency of the case, the Mother was arrested for assaulting the child’s paternal grandmother and engaged in reciprocal domestic violence with the children’s father. Laboratory results confirmed the Mother was positive for cocaine and methamphetamines. Although the Mother was ordered to complete a comprehensive family service plan, her participation was erratic. She was unsuccessfully discharged from both inpatient substance abuse treatment and individual counseling due to behavioral issues and non-attendance. While she eventually secured housing and proof of income, she failed to provide documentation of psychiatric care or medication management for her diagnosed bipolar disorder and PTSD.

Issues Decided

The Court addressed two primary issues:

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support a predicate finding for termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D).
2. Whether there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination of the Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children under Section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

The Court applied the heightened “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard required by Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b). Under the “one-predicate” rule, the Court noted that only one finding under Section 161.001(b)(1) is necessary to support termination if accompanied by a best-interest finding. Regarding the best-interest analysis, the Court utilized the non-exhaustive factors set forth in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), focusing specifically on the emotional and physical needs of the children, the emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future, the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, and the stability of the home.

Application

The appellate analysis began with the Mother’s concession. In her briefing, the Mother admitted that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that she engaged in endangering conduct under subsection (E). Because a single predicate finding is sufficient, the Court declined to review the sufficiency of the evidence regarding subsection (D). Turning to the best-interest inquiry, the Court analyzed the Mother’s conduct through the lens of the Holley factors. The Mother argued that her acquisition of housing and income demonstrated a commitment to stability. However, the Court contrasted these material gains against her “unsuccessful discharge” from drug treatment and therapy. The narrative of the case established a pattern of aggressive behavior and criminal activity that continued throughout the proceedings. The Court found that the Mother’s failure to complete her service plan—specifically her failure to address her substance abuse and mental health—supported a reasonable inference that her past conduct would predict future instability and danger.

Holding

The Court held that because the Mother conceded the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the predicate finding of endangering conduct under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), the trial court’s predicate determination must be affirmed.

The Court further held that the best-interest finding was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. Specifically, the Mother’s persistent drug use, failure to comply with psychiatric recommendations, and continued involvement in domestic violence outweighed her partial compliance with the service plan, satisfying the Department’s burden to prove that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Practical Application

This opinion highlights the difficulty of prevailing on a best-interest challenge when the parent has failed to complete the “psychological” components of a service plan. Practitioners should emphasize to clients that “checking the boxes” on housing and employment will not save a case if the client remains “unsuccessfully discharged” from therapy or drug treatment. From an appellate standpoint, this case underscores the necessity of a meticulous approach to the In re N.G. requirements; while the Court here moved quickly due to the concession, practitioners must be wary of how admitting to (E) conduct may inadvertently provide the Court with the necessary ammunition to affirm a best-interest finding.

Checklists

Defending Best Interest in Termination Cases

• Verify Clinical Compliance: Ensure the client has not only attended but has been successfully discharged from therapy and drug programs.
• Documentation of Med-Management: Maintain a contemporary log of prescriptions and psychiatric visits to rebut caseworker claims of non-compliance.
• Mitigate Domestic Violence Evidence: If criminal charges are pending or occurred during the suit, document the client’s proactive enrollment in Battering Intervention and Prevention Programs (BIPP) beyond what the service plan requires.

Appellate Strategy for Predicate Findings

• Avoid Blanket Concessions: Carefully evaluate whether a concession on subsection (E) is strategically sound, given its weight in the Holley analysis.
• Challenge Factually Similar Precedent: Distinguish cases where “partial compliance” was deemed insufficient from those where “substantial compliance” prevented termination.
• Preserve Sufficiency Points: Ensure all challenges to best-interest findings are specifically tied to the lack of evidence regarding the Holley factors.

Citation

In the Interest of O.T.D.H.C. and M.E.C. a/k/a M.C., III, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet.) (No. 14-25-00708-CV).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Available Here

~~13a8b43e-477d-4efe-8e38-343a5d80e070~~