Fourth Court Affirms Termination Based on Best-Interest Evidence and Continued Drug Use

In the Interest of E.D.A., Child, 04-25-00723-CV, March 25, 2026.

On appeal from 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed termination because the record contained legally and factually sufficient best-interest evidence under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Mother’s relapse on heroin, refusal to submit to drug testing, failure to complete core service-plan requirements, and missed visits—contrasted with the child’s stability and bond in an adoptive foster placement—supported the trial court’s best-interest finding.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a Department termination case, the opinion is highly transferable to private SAPCR and divorce-custody disputes where substance use, refusal to test, and noncompliance with court-ordered services drive conservatorship, possession, and relocation outcomes. The Fourth Court’s analysis underscores that (1) a party’s refusal to drug test can be argued as circumstantial evidence of continued use, and (2) “best interest” can be proven through a cohesive narrative that marries conduct-based risk evidence (drug relapse, missed visits, failure to engage services) with placement-based stability evidence (bonding, needs met, child’s expressed preference, and caregiver ability to regulate post-contact dysregulation). In custody litigation, this logic often maps directly onto arguments for supervised access, step-up plans, geographic restrictions, or a shift in primary conservatorship when a parent’s relapse and disengagement undermine stability.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to E.D.A. after an investigation triggered by a referral alleging heroin use. The trial court appointed the Department as temporary managing conservator and adopted a family service plan aimed at reunification. This was Mother’s second termination proceeding involving the child: E.D.A. had previously been removed for drug use, returned after Mother completed services, and then removed again after relapse.

At the bench trial, the Department presented testimony from the legal caseworker and investigative caseworker, along with Mother, Mother’s mother, and the foster mother. Key evidence included Mother’s admission that she relapsed on heroin, her refusal to submit to any of eighteen requested drug tests, and her failure to complete significant service-plan components (including drug/alcohol assessment and treatment, counseling, and parenting class). Mother also missed fifteen scheduled visits.

On the placement side, the child had been in the foster home for about eleven months, was “very well bonded” with the foster family, and the foster parents wished to adopt. The evidence showed the foster parents were meeting the child’s physical, emotional, and medical needs. The record also developed the child’s behavioral dysregulation surrounding family visits (including screaming, crying, and room-destruction behaviors), and the foster parents’ structured approach to helping the child regulate after visits. The child reportedly stated she wanted to remain in the foster home.

Mother appealed only the best-interest finding, not the predicate grounds.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2) that termination was in the child’s best interest.
• Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support that same best-interest finding.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework and best-interest authorities:

• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2) (best-interest requirement) and § 161.001(b)(1) (predicate grounds, not challenged on appeal but relevant as contextual evidence).
• Clear and convincing evidence definition: Texas Family Code § 101.007.
• Legal and factual sufficiency standards for termination findings: In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).
• Best-interest factors: Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive; no factor required; none dispositive).
• Best-interest proof principles: In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (predicate-ground evidence may be probative of best interest but does not substitute for it).
• Presumptions and placement policy:
• Presumption favoring parent-child relationship: In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).
• Countervailing presumption favoring prompt, permanent placement in a safe environment: Texas Family Code § 263.307(a), and the § 263.307(b) factors.
• Drug-testing refusal inference: In re K.C.B., 280 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (refusal supports inference of continued drug use).
• Drug use as danger evidence: Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (en banc).
• Failure to engage services as probative: In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).

Application

The Fourth Court’s best-interest analysis is a textbook “totality of the circumstances” application using the Holley and § 263.307 lenses, with drug relapse and noncompliance serving as the risk core and the foster placement serving as the stability core.

First, the court treated Mother’s relapse and testing refusal as forward-looking danger evidence. Mother admitted heroin relapse; the Department’s caseworker confirmed Mother submitted to none of eighteen requested drug tests. The court relied on established authority that refusal to test supports an inference of ongoing use, allowing the trial judge to evaluate risk without a lab result. The opinion also tied narcotics exposure during pregnancy and continued use after removal to present and future danger—framing drug use not as a moral failing but as a predictive safety factor relevant to the child’s physical and emotional needs and Mother’s ability to provide a stable home.

Second, the court emphasized service-plan disengagement as an indicator of diminished parental capacity and future risk. The plan required drug assessment/treatment, counseling, psychological evaluation, parenting class, stable housing and employment proof, and visitation participation. Mother’s failure to complete key components—especially treatment-related items—supported an inference that she could not or would not utilize available programs to effect change within a reasonable time. Missed visits further reinforced the trial court’s conclusion that Mother was not demonstrating consistent, safe parenting behavior.

Third, the court contrasted Mother’s nonperformance with the foster placement’s stability and the child’s integration. The record established a strong bond with the foster family, the foster parents’ demonstrated capacity to meet needs, and a desire to adopt—evidence that aligns with the “stable home/proposed placement” factor and the statutory policy favoring permanency. Importantly for trial strategy, the Department developed testimony about the child’s post-visit dysregulation and the foster parents’ concrete, structured interventions (routine, childcare schedule, activities) to support regulation—evidence that makes “stability” operational rather than abstract.

Viewed through the J.F.C. standards, the Fourth Court held a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest, and that the contrary evidence was not so significant as to preclude that firm conviction.

Holding

The Fourth Court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Mother’s heroin relapse, refusal to test, failure to complete major service-plan requirements, and missed visits—together with evidence of the child’s bond and stability in an adoptive foster home—allowed the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that termination served the child’s best interest.

The Fourth Court also held the evidence was factually sufficient to support the same best-interest finding. Considering the entire record and giving due deference to the trial court’s credibility and weighing decisions under the clear-and-convincing standard, the appellate court concluded the disputed evidence was not so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have reached its best-interest determination. The termination order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, E.D.A. is a reminder that best-interest proof is rarely won with a single “bad fact”; it is won by building a coherent evidentiary arc that explains why future risk is likely and why an alternative placement (or conservatorship structure) is demonstrably more stable.

• In private SAPCR modification cases involving alleged relapse, E.D.A. supports arguing that a parent’s refusal to test is itself meaningful circumstantial evidence. Practically, this can justify temporary orders for supervised possession, injunctions against substance use, or immediate orders for observed testing with consequences for refusal.
• In divorce custody disputes, the case reinforces that courts will weigh (a) the parent’s willingness to engage in recommended services and (b) the child’s functioning before and after exchanges. When you can connect missed visits, dysregulated exchanges, or inconsistent contact to a predictable pattern—and present the other household’s stabilizing routines—you are litigating best interest the way appellate courts describe it.
• For lawyers defending against termination (or against a severe custody restriction), E.D.A. highlights the appellate vulnerability created by a record showing (1) missed testing, (2) incomplete treatment, and (3) inconsistent visitation. The practical defensive goal is to prevent the “refusal narrative” from forming by documenting compliance, re-engagement, and objective sobriety measures early and continuously.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record Around Substance Use

• Obtain orders that specify testing frequency, testing modality (observed/unobserved), and consequences for refusal.
• Offer evidence of relapse history and timing (including post-removal relapse) as predictive risk.
• Develop testimony linking use/refusal to Holley factors: needs, danger, parental abilities, stability, and acts/omissions indicating an improper relationship.
• Elicit expert or caseworker testimony on how substance use impacts safe supervision, routine, and emotional regulation for the child.
• Use admissions (texts, prior rehab records, social media, medical records where admissible) to corroborate relapse and impairment.

Turning “Refusal to Test” into Persuasive Circumstantial Proof

• Create a clean paper trail of test requests: date, method of notice, location, and deadline.
• Prove the requests were reasonable and accessible (transportation options, scheduling, cost coverage).
• Offer testimony that the parent received notice and understood the consequences.
• Tie refusal to case law recognizing the inference of continued use (and argue it as common-sense credibility evidence).
• Anticipate and rebut excuses (work conflicts, transportation, medical issues) with objective documentation.

Proving Stability and Permanency in the Alternative Placement (or Conservatorship Plan)

• Establish length of placement and the child’s bonding and integration (home, school, daycare, medical care).
• Document routines that promote regulation: schedules, counseling, extracurriculars, childcare structure.
• Offer evidence of caregiver capacity to meet medical, educational, and emotional needs.
• Present caregiver intent (adoption, long-term placement, or stable primary conservatorship) and practical readiness.
• Capture the child’s expressed preferences where admissible and developmentally appropriate, and corroborate with behavior evidence.

Defending the Parent: Avoiding the “Disengagement” Record

• Never let “refusal” be the theme: complete testing or promptly seek court relief for legitimate barriers.
• Complete the highest-value services first (assessment, treatment, counseling), and file progress reports.
• Maintain consistent visitation; if a visit is missed, document the reason and attempt make-up visits.
• Present objective sobriety indicators (observed tests, treatment milestones, sponsor letters, stable employment/housing proof).
• Build a timeline exhibit showing compliance and sustained change within a reasonable period.

Citation

In the Interest of E.D.A., Child, No. 04-25-00723-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 25, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~b8936cf4-0d22-4bfa-9675-2dcb78f0abdc~~