Fort Worth Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Over Claims of Evidentiary Insufficiency
In the Interest of J.P. and I.P., 02-25-00437-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from the 233rd District Court of Tarrant County.
Synopsis
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for both Mother and Father, holding that the record contained legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangering conduct and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The court specifically pointed to a history of methamphetamine use—including an instance where a toddler placed a drug pipe in his mouth—and a persistent failure to provide a safe, habitable living environment as the primary drivers for the affirmation.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this opinion underscores the high hurdle of overturning evidentiary sufficiency findings in “ultra-accelerated” termination appeals. It highlights that endangering conduct under Section 161.001(b)(1) is often found in the “environment” created by the parents’ choices, such as residing in a home without running water or returning to a known drug-user’s residence. Litigators should take note that a parent’s claim of ignorance regarding a partner’s drug use or the specific requirements of a DFPS safety plan is rarely a successful appellate strategy when the objective physical conditions of the home are “deplorable.”
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department’s involvement with the family began in 2017, but the precipitating events for this termination occurred between 2022 and 2024. When J.P. was born in 2022, the child tested positive for methamphetamine. By 2024, Mother and Father were residing in a Fort Worth home with Mother’s ex-boyfriend. The residence was under construction, lacked a kitchen, and had no running water. In March 2024, police responded to a call and observed Mother intoxicated on methamphetamine; during the encounter, an officer witnessed Mother allow her one-year-old child, I.P., to place a methamphetamine pipe in his mouth.
Following Mother’s arrest, Father was given possession of the children on the express condition that he not return to the home where Mother resided. Father violated this condition almost immediately, returning to the Fort Worth residence because he lacked stable housing in Dallas. Investigators subsequently found the home in a “deplorable” state, littered with construction debris and powered only by an extension cord from a neighboring property. Consequently, the Department sought and obtained termination of both parents’ rights.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings on the statutory grounds for termination and the best-interest findings. Specifically, Mother challenged the findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), while Father challenged only the best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2).
Rules Applied
The Court applied the standard of review for termination cases, which requires clear and convincing evidence—a measure of proof that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations. The Court looked to In re J.F.C. and In re C.H. for the legal and factual sufficiency frameworks.
Regarding the statutory grounds, the court focused on Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering environment) and (E) (endangering conduct). For the best-interest analysis, the Court utilized the non-exhaustive Holley v. Adams factors, including the desires of the children, the emotional and physical needs of the children, the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody, and the stability of the home.
Application
The Court’s application of the law to the facts focused on the cumulative effect of the parents’ neglect. For Mother, the evidence was overwhelming: a newborn testing positive for drugs and a toddler physically interacting with drug paraphernalia. The Court found that Mother’s continued drug use and her decision to keep the children in a home without basic utilities created an environment that significantly endangered the children’s physical and emotional well-being.
For Father, the Court rejected the argument that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Although Father had made some efforts in his service plan, his decision to return the children to a hazardous environment—and to Mother, who he knew had been arrested for child endangerment—demonstrated a profound lack of judgment and an inability to provide a stable home. The Court noted that Father’s “ignorance” of the DFPS conditions did not excuse the fact that he placed the children in a home without running water or a kitchen, which are fundamental requirements for child safety.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order of termination in its entirety. It held that the evidence of Mother’s drug use and the uninhabitable state of the residence provided a sufficient basis for findings under subsections (D) and (E).
In a separate analysis of the best-interest finding, the Court held that the children’s need for stability and a drug-free environment outweighed the parents’ claims of progress. The Court emphasized that the children were thriving in a foster-to-adopt placement, which stood in stark contrast to the “deplorable” conditions they were removed from.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for both the Department and private practitioners in high-conflict custody or termination suits involving environmental neglect.
* For the Movant: Prioritize evidence regarding the physical state of the home (lack of utilities, presence of drug paraphernalia) as these are objective markers of endangerment that are difficult to rebut on appeal.
* For the Respondent: This case serves as a warning that “substantial compliance” with a service plan (like Father’s therapy or work) can be completely undermined by a single poor choice regarding the children’s living environment or association with an endangering co-parent.
Checklists
Evidentiary Foundations for Endangerment
- Documented history of drug exposure (neonatal testing, hair follicle results).
- Police testimony regarding the accessibility of drug paraphernalia to the children.
- Physical inspection reports of the residence (specifically noting lack of running water, electricity, or cooking facilities).
- Evidence of “protective failure”—cases where one parent knows or should have known of the other’s endangering conduct but fails to separate the children from the threat.
Overcoming Best-Interest Challenges
- Contrast the current “deplorable” environment with the foster placement’s stability.
- Highlight the parent’s inability to prioritize the children’s safety over their own convenience (e.g., returning to a hazardous home for free rent).
- Utilize expert testimony (therapists or permanency specialists) to establish the lack of a bond or the children’s improvement since removal.
Citation
In the Interest of J.P. and I.P., No. 02-25-00437-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a9fc49d2-4b89-4be4-a560-713b7a344097~~
Share this content:
