First Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Following Endangerment and Best Interest Challenges

In the Interest of F.H. and D.K.A., 01-25-00760-CV, March 12, 2026.

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

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decree terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding factually sufficient evidence to support both the endangerment predicate under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and the best-interest finding. Despite Mother’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence following the dismissal of related criminal charges, the court held that a persistent pattern of neglectful supervision, untreated substance abuse, and failure to complete court-ordered services established a clear course of endangering conduct.

Relevance to Family Law

This case underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to overturn a trial court’s factual sufficiency findings in termination proceedings, particularly concerning the “course of conduct” requirement of Subsection (E). For the practitioner, it serves as a reminder that the dismissal of criminal charges related to child endangerment does not preclude a finding of endangerment in the civil context, where the focus remains on the “totality of the circumstances” regarding the parent’s history and current stability. Furthermore, it reinforces that a parent’s failure to comply with even a few components of a service plan—specifically psychiatric recommendations and drug testing—can be dispositive in the best-interest analysis.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) became involved with the family following a long history of referrals involving physical abuse and neglect. While many early referrals were “ruled out,” a 2014 incident involved Mother leaving an infant unattended in a vehicle. In 2023, Mother was arrested and charged with injury to a child for allegedly striking her daughter with a belt. Although this criminal charge was eventually dismissed, the children were removed and placed into Father’s care, and subsequently into Department care after further allegations of physical abuse in Father’s home. During the pendency of the case, Mother failed to comply with several requirements of her family plan of service: she did not follow psychiatric recommendations, failed to provide proof of stable housing or income, and tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. Additionally, a Child Advocates representative testified to the poor condition of Mother’s home, noting a pervasive smell of marijuana and the presence of alcohol and drug paraphernalia.

Issues Decided

1. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Mother engaged in conduct or placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the children under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E).
2. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E): Requires evidence that the parent engaged in a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2): Requires that termination be in the best interest of the child, evaluated under the Holley v. Adams factors.
• Factual Sufficiency Standard: The court must determine whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations.
• The Holley Factors: A non-exhaustive list including the desires of the children, the emotional and physical needs of the children, parental abilities, and the stability of the home.

Application

The court applied the law by looking beyond isolated incidents to Mother’s broader “course of conduct.” Regarding the endangerment predicate, the court found that while the specific 2023 criminal charge was dismissed, the record contained sufficient evidence of Mother’s history of physical discipline, neglectful supervision (the 2014 vehicle incident), and continued drug use during the suit. The court emphasized that endearment under Subsection (E) does not require that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffer injury; the threat to the child’s well-being is sufficient.

In the best-interest analysis, the court weighed Mother’s lack of transparency regarding her housing and income, her hostile interactions with Child Advocates, and her failure to follow psychiatric recommendations against the children’s need for permanence. The court noted that although the children were not in adoptive placements at the time of trial, Mother’s continued substance abuse and inability to provide a safe environment supported the trial court’s conclusion that the children’s future was better served by termination than by reunification.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). The court reasoned that Mother’s historical pattern of neglect combined with her current instability and drug use constituted an endangering course of conduct that was not excused by the dismissal of her criminal case.

The Court of Appeals further held that termination was in the best interest of the children. Each child’s need for emotional and physical safety outweighed the Mother’s parental rights, particularly given Mother’s failure to demonstrate the ability to maintain a drug-free, stable, and non-hostile environment during the duration of the trial proceedings.

Practical Application

Trial counsel must recognize that “ruled out” CPS referrals are not necessarily invisible to an appellate court when they form part of a broader narrative of endangerment. Strategic emphasis should be placed on the parent’s conduct after the Department becomes involved. If a parent fails to follow the “recommendations” within a psychological or psychiatric evaluation—even if they attended the evaluation itself—appellate courts will likely view this as a failure to mitigate the endangering conduct. Counsel should also be prepared to address how substance use (even marijuana, which is increasingly normalized) is treated as a per se endangerment factor in the First Court of Appeals.

Checklists

Defending Against Endangerment Findings

• Document immediate cessation of substance use with frequent, private, third-party drug tests (hair and urine) to establish a “clean” timeline.
• Prepare a detailed rebuttal for “stale” referrals, emphasizing any intervening years of stable parenting or lack of Department intervention.
• Ensure the client strictly adheres to every sub-recommendation in a psychosocial or psychiatric evaluation to prevent “failure to follow recommendations” from becoming an endangering factor.

Challenging Best Interest Findings on Appeal

• Verify whether the record contains evidence of the children’s specific desires, especially for children over the age of 12.
• Contrast the parent’s current stability (if any) with the lack of a permanent placement (e.g., residential treatment centers vs. adoptive homes) to argue against the “permanence” factor of Holley.
• Object to the introduction of alcohol/drug use evidence if it cannot be tied to a specific endangering effect on the children’s well-being.

Citation

In the Interest of F.H. and D.K.A., No. 01-25-00760-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 12, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~5ae47f1c-5646-4bf9-b062-003138d70ddd~~