Amarillo Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights on Best-Interest Evidence

In the Interest of J.E.H., a Child, 07-25-00405-CV, March 25, 2026.

On appeal from 46th District Court, Wilbarger County, Texas

Synopsis

The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed termination where the record supported a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Evidence of unsafe and unstable housing, minimal contact and support, and Mother’s failure to complete key service-plan requirements—contrasted with the child’s stability and progress in placement—carried both legal and factual sufficiency.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a Department termination case, the opinion has direct crossover value for Texas family law litigators handling custody/primary conservatorship disputes, modification suits, and cases with “best interest” findings under Chapter 153. The Seventh Court’s analysis underscores how appellate courts credit stability, follow-through, and demonstrated parenting capacity over aspirational promises—especially when the child is a teenager with clearly expressed preferences and the record documents unmet medical, educational, and housing needs. The opinion is also a useful roadmap for rebutting “poverty/disability” framing by tying the best-interest proof to concrete safety, care, and consistency deficiencies rather than socioeconomic status.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved in October 2024 after receiving information that fifteen-year-old J.E.H. was potentially homeless or living in unsafe, unstable conditions. The record included evidence that the child had recently been taken to the hospital for an overdose of a cousin’s medication and that Mother’s failure to complete paperwork related to that incident resulted in the child being unable to return to school. The evidence further indicated the child was “couch surfing,” sometimes walking the streets looking for a place to stay, and staying in places Mother may not have known about.

Mother was living in a residence described as dirty, cluttered, with broken/missing windows, trash piled outside, no serviceable kitchen, and inconsistent utilities (water/electricity). Some testimony suggested Mother was “squatting” there; Mother characterized it as staying rent-free in exchange for maintaining the property to avoid municipal scrutiny. A caseworker testified the home was not suitable or safe for a child and that—even when the child was not physically in the home—she was not receiving appropriate care, including necessary medical care for a knee issue.

After removal, J.E.H. was placed in foster care and remained in the Department’s care for about a year by the time of final hearing. During that year, Mother had only three visits with the child; the child felt uncomfortable during those visits and did not want contact. The child was doing “really well” in placement: she had a safe home, was not using drugs or engaging in self-harm, was involved in extracurriculars, and her needs were being met. The caregiver became licensed specifically to foster J.E.H. and sought a stable long-term placement, which aligned with the child’s expressed desire to remain there.

Mother had medical issues (including diabetes and high blood pressure with leg swelling that sometimes limited mobility), was on disability, and had mental health conditions. The service plan required multiple tasks to secure reunification. Mother completed a psychological evaluation but did not remedy her housing instability and failed to complete other significant requirements, including parenting classes and individual counseling. The caseworker also testified Mother did not provide financial or other support; Mother testified she sent small amounts of money “three or four times,” but nothing significant.

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N), and found termination was in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). On appeal, Mother challenged only best interest, arguing termination improperly punished her for being poor and disabled.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b): Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of (1) a predicate ground and (2) best interest.
• Texas Family Code § 101.007: Defines “clear and convincing evidence.”
• Sufficiency standards:
  • In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency frameworks in termination cases).
  • In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (no “surmise or suspicion”; must support firm belief/conviction).
• Best-interest framework:
  • Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive best-interest factors).
  • In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (not all Holley factors required; endangerment evidence can be best-interest evidence).
  • In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (endangerment/predicate-ground evidence may also prove best interest).
• Presumptions and policy:
  • In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring preservation of parent-child relationship).
  • Permanency/stability as a principal consideration (e.g., In re K.C., 219 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.)).
• Unchallenged predicate findings bind the court of appeals (as cited in the opinion’s discussion of Seventh Court precedent).

Application

The Seventh Court’s best-interest analysis is notable for how it treats the appellate posture: Mother did not challenge the predicate grounds, so the court treated those findings as binding and permissible to consider as best-interest evidence. That procedural reality mattered because the predicate findings (endangering conditions/endangerment/constructive abandonment) dovetailed with the best-interest proof: unsafe and unstable housing, lack of basic care, and minimal meaningful parental engagement.

Against Mother’s argument that termination was effectively based on poverty and disability, the court focused on functional parenting deficits supported by the record—unsafe living conditions, prolonged instability, and failure to complete core services designed to mitigate the risk factors that led to removal. Importantly, the evidence did not merely show hardship; it showed the child lacked safe, stable housing and adequate medical/educational support while in Mother’s care, and Mother did not demonstrate sustained remediation during the case.

The court also emphasized the child-centered nature of the best-interest inquiry. J.E.H. was a teenager, had spent a year in care, had minimal contact with Mother, was uncomfortable with visits, and expressed a desire to remain in the stable long-term placement. The placement evidence was not generic: the caregiver took steps to become licensed for this child, the child’s needs were being met, and the child was thriving behaviorally and socially. That “before-and-after” contrast—instability and unmet needs versus stability and progress—provided the kind of concrete best-interest narrative that withstands both legal and factual sufficiency review under the clear-and-convincing standard.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2) because, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in J.E.H.’s best interest given the unsafe/unstable housing, lack of adequate care, minimal visitation and support, incomplete services, and the child’s stability and desire to remain in her placement.

The court also held the evidence was factually sufficient because, considering the entire record and giving due deference to the factfinder’s credibility determinations, the disputed evidence was not so significant as to prevent a reasonable factfinder from maintaining a firm belief or conviction that termination best served the child’s need for safety, stability, and permanency.

Practical Application

For litigators trying termination cases—and for private custody cases where “best interest” is the battlefield—this opinion reinforces several strategic points:

• Build best-interest proof around functionality, not labels. If the other side frames the case as poverty/disability bias, your response should be evidence-based: housing safety, utilities, hygiene, school attendance, medical follow-through, supervision, and demonstrated change over time. Courts will not terminate “because a parent is poor,” but they will affirm termination where poverty correlates with unremedied danger or neglect and the record shows the parent did not take available steps to stabilize.
• Service-plan compliance is not just a predicate story; it is a best-interest story. The court credited noncompletion of parenting classes and counseling and continued housing instability as relevant to best interest. In private cases, translate that principle to: compliance with temporary orders, engagement in counseling/therapy, sobriety monitoring, co-parenting facilitation, and consistent exercise of visitation.
• Teen preference plus placement success can be decisive when corroborated. The child’s discomfort with visits, minimal contact history, and desire to remain in placement mattered—especially because the record supported that the child was thriving and safe. In modification and SAPCR disputes involving older children, invest in admissible evidence that ties the child’s stated preference to stability and well-being, not merely conflict.
• Appellate posture matters: preserve and challenge what matters. Mother’s decision not to challenge predicate grounds effectively narrowed the appeal to best interest with predicate findings treated as binding. For defense counsel, that’s a cautionary tale about issue selection and preservation; for the Department (or petitioners), it highlights the value of developing a record that supports both prongs independently, knowing some issues may be waived on appeal.

Checklists

Best-Interest Record (Clear-and-Convincing) in a Termination Case

• Document housing conditions with specificity (photos, utility records, lease status, witness testimony)
• Prove stability over time (not last-minute improvements) with dates and corroboration
• Tie deficits to child impact (school disruption, medical gaps, hygiene, supervision failures)
• Offer comparative evidence of the child’s progress in current placement (grades, counseling notes, extracurriculars, caregiver testimony)
• Develop the child’s preference appropriately (age-appropriate testimony, CASA/GAL input, therapist/caseworker observations)

Service-Plan and Reunification Evidence That Moves the Needle on Best Interest

• Introduce the service plan and ensure it is admitted
• Track completion with certificates, provider records, and dates
• Elicit testimony on missed appointments, refusals, and follow-through problems
• Prove “changed conditions” with objective measures (stable housing verification, counseling attendance logs, medication compliance, sobriety testing if applicable)
• Address barriers (medical/disability) with evidence of accommodations offered and the parent’s efforts to utilize them

Defending Against “Termination Because I’m Poor/Disabled” Arguments

• Separate status from conduct: focus testimony on safety, supervision, and care deficits
• Prove reasonable efforts and offered resources (transportation, housing referrals, scheduling flexibility)
• Show the parent’s capacity to engage despite limitations (or inability to do so) with concrete examples
• Develop evidence that the decision is child-centered (risk reduction, stability, permanency), not punishment
• Anticipate constitutional rhetoric and respond with record cites to specific endangerment/neglect facts

Private SAPCR/Modification Translation Checklist (Using the Same Best-Interest Themes)

• Stability evidence: school attendance, medical/dental continuity, stable residence verification
• Parenting capacity: appointment attendance, medication management, special-needs follow-through
• Co-parenting conduct: facilitation of contact, compliance with orders, communication history
• Child preference (when appropriate): corroborate with neutral sources and stability indicators
• Create a “timeline exhibit” showing patterns (instability vs. stability) rather than isolated incidents

Citation

In the Interest of J.E.H., a Child, No. 07-25-00405-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 25, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~b78f318f-36e4-4052-9773-658f7bb6fa48~~