Thirteenth Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Over Evidence of Endangering Conduct and Physical Neglect

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, 13-25-00448-CV, February 05, 2026.

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of M.R. and B.J.A. to their three minor children. The court held that the Department presented clear and convincing evidence of endangering conduct and environments under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), predicated on the children’s positive drug tests, significant physical injuries, and the parents’ wholesale failure to demonstrate behavioral stability or accountability throughout the pendency of the case.

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law practitioner, this memorandum opinion reinforces the high evidentiary bar for “clear and convincing” evidence while clarifying that “completing” a service plan is not a safe harbor if the parent fails to manifest actual behavioral change. In high-conflict custody or termination litigation, this case underscores that endangering conduct under subsection (E) can be established by a parent’s failure to provide a stable environment, even in the absence of a direct link between the parent’s specific act and a specific injury, provided the conduct creates a predictable environment of danger. It further illustrates the appellate court’s willingness to look past technical compliance with Department service plans when the underlying risk factors—such as lack of housing, income, and accountability for physical abuse—remain unmitigated.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The children, Alice, Adam, and Laura, were removed from their parents’ care following reports of severe neglect and physical abuse. At the time of removal, Alice (eight months old) suffered from an untreated ear infection, a facial bruise attributed to the Father, a fractured tibia, and a positive toxicology screen for cocaine. Adam (two years old) was discovered abandoned in a park with a soiled diaper and subsequently tested positive for amphetamines. Laura (three years old) was observed consuming discarded food from the floor, leading to illness. During the removal, investigators observed visible drug paraphernalia in the home.

Throughout the two-year pendency of the case, the Mother failed to secure stable housing or employment, notably declining assistance from “Hope House” despite a CASA worker’s advocacy. While the Mother technically completed some aspects of her service plan, she failed to maintain regular visitation, frequently missing scheduled appointments and causing emotional distress to the children. The Father’s involvement was virtually non-existent; he was incarcerated for sexual assault of a child, refused to work on his service plan while in custody, and declined to meet with Department caseworkers.

Issues Decided

The primary issue before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals was whether the Department met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory ground for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1). Specifically, the court examined whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings under subsections (D) (endangering environment), (E) (endangering conduct), and (N) or (O) (failure to complete service plans/constructive abandonment).

Rules Applied

The court applied the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard required by Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985), noting that this standard is an intermediate measure of proof between a preponderance and reasonable doubt. The court’s analysis centered on Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1):

• Subsection (D): Focuses on the child’s environment and whether the parent knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in conditions that endangered their physical or emotional well-being.
• Subsection (E): Focuses on the parent’s course of conduct, requiring evidence that the parent engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Best Interest: Under § 161.001(b)(2), the Department must also prove termination is in the child’s best interest, though the focus of this appeal was primarily on the statutory grounds.

Application

The court’s application of the law to the facts focused on the nexus between the parents’ lifestyle choices and the children’s physical health. Regarding the Mother, the court highlighted that while she may have “checked boxes” on a service plan, her refusal to acknowledge the abuse or take accountability for the children’s condition—including the fractured tibia and drug exposure—demonstrated a continuing risk of endangerment. The court noted her refusal to secure independent housing and her inconsistent visitation as evidence of a failure to mitigate the endangering environment.

For the Father, the court pointed to his criminal history, his alleged physical abuse of the infant, and his refusal to submit to drug testing or participate in services while incarcerated. The court found that such a “course of conduct” inherently endangers a child’s well-being. The court emphasized that subsection (E) does not require the endangering conduct to be directed specifically at the child; rather, a parent’s general failure to provide stability and their engagement in criminal or drug-related activity is sufficient to support termination.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights. The court held that the evidence of the children’s physical injuries, their positive drug tests, and the parents’ refusal to maintain a stable or drug-free environment constituted clear and convincing evidence under both subsections (D) and (E).

The court further held that because only one statutory ground is required to support a termination order (along with a best-interest finding), it was unnecessary to reach the merits of the challenges to subsections (N) or (O). The trial court’s judgment was affirmed in its entirety.

Practical Application

This case serves as a strategic roadmap for practitioners dealing with “minimal compliance” by parents. When representing the Department or an Intervenor, focus on the “accountability gap.” If a parent completes classes but continues to deny that abuse occurred or fails to secure the basic necessities of life (housing/income), the appellate court will likely find that the endangering conduct remains uncurated. Conversely, for defense counsel, this case emphasizes that visitation is a critical metric for “parental motivation”—missing visits, particularly those that “trigger” or “freak out” the children, is a high-impact factor in an appellate court’s sufficiency review.

Checklists

Evidentiary Metrics for Endangering Conduct (Subsection E)

• Toxicology Results: Document all positive tests for the child and the parent; note that a child’s positive test for cocaine or amphetamines is near-dispositive of endangerment.
• Medical History: Secure records for all unexplained or non-accidental injuries (e.g., fractured tibia, unexplained bruising).
• Accountability Assessment: Note if the parent acknowledges the cause of removal; a refusal to admit the existence of neglect is evidence of a continuing danger.
• Criminal Trajectory: Detail all arrests and the parent’s willingness (or lack thereof) to engage in services while incarcerated.

Overcoming the “Service Plan Completion” Defense

• Behavioral vs. Technical Compliance: Contrast “box-checking” (attending a class) with “behavioral change” (implementing the skills taught).
• Stability Milestones: Track the parent’s history of housing and employment over the entire duration of the case, not just the weeks preceding trial.
• Visitation Consistency: Document every missed visit and the specific excuse provided; highlight the emotional impact of “no-shows” on the child’s psychological state.
• Resource Utilization: Highlight instances where the parent was offered specific help (e.g., Housing Authority, transportation) but failed to follow through.

Citation

In the Interest of S.A., A.A., A.L.A., Children, No. 13-25-00448-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

~~6f559852-f6ed-429b-8edc-2fde30773f49~~