Eleventh Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Mother’s Parental Rights Based on Methamphetamine Use and Endangerment

In re R.H. and E.H., 11-25-00317-CV, April 16, 2026.

On appeal from 42nd District Court, Callahan County, Texas

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2). The record allowed the trial court to form a firm conviction that termination was in the twins’ best interest based on the mother’s methamphetamine use during pregnancy, the children’s positive drug tests at birth, ongoing domestic violence involving the father, and the mother’s inconsistent conduct after birth, including limited NICU visitation and noncompliance with Department efforts.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its reasoning reaches far beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family law litigators handling SAPCRs, modifications, protective-order cases, and divorce suits involving conservatorship disputes, the opinion reinforces several familiar propositions: substance abuse during pregnancy is highly probative of future endangerment; a parent’s continued association with an abusive partner can independently inform best-interest analysis; and post-separation or post-filing “partial compliance” will not outweigh a record showing instability, avoidance, and impaired parental judgment. In private custody litigation, this case is a useful appellate analog when arguing that a parent’s drug use, failure to protect children from family violence, and inability to prioritize medically fragile children supports restrictions on possession, supervised access, or sole managing conservatorship.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case involved newborn twins, R.H. and E.H., who were born in July 2024. The mother began using methamphetamine shortly after entering a relationship with the father in late 2023. She claimed that she resumed drug use after more than a decade because of the father’s physical and emotional abuse. Even so, the record showed that she continued to allow the father back into her life and home, including into the apartment she shared with her older son.

Shortly before the twins were born, the mother permitted the father to stay with her for several days. After she eventually locked him out, he broke a window, tried to force entry, and damaged a vehicle with a hammer. She reported the incident to police but did not seek a protective order. When the twins were born, the mother and both children tested positive for methamphetamine. She admitted using methamphetamine throughout the pregnancy, including about a week before delivery. She also reported that the father slapped and choked her at the hospital just hours after the children were born.

The twins remained in the NICU until late July. They were medically fragile, in incubators, on oxygen, and fed through feeding tubes. The mother’s visits were sporadic and often poorly timed. Hospital personnel repeatedly told her she could not breastfeed because of her methamphetamine use, but she returned to attempt breastfeeding anyway and left upset when prevented from doing so.

The Department’s investigator had difficulty making contact with the mother, assessing the home, and implementing a safety plan. The mother admitted recent methamphetamine use but also told the investigator she wanted the father involved in the children’s lives. The record further showed that she let the father back into the apartment again after the birth, and another assault followed. When the investigator finally met with her, the mother refused drug testing, refused to discuss a safety plan, and would not sign medical releases.

After the Department was appointed temporary managing conservator, the trial court ordered services, including parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, participation in AA or NA, drug testing, counseling, stable housing and employment, and cooperation with the Department. The opinion snippet reflects that the Department continued to encounter communication problems and resistance, and that the mother was difficult to locate and uncooperative when the caseworker tried to facilitate services.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the same best-interest finding.
• More specifically, whether the evidence, viewed through the governing standards and the nonexclusive Holley factors, permitted the factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the twins’ best interest.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b): the Department must prove by clear and convincing evidence both a predicate ground under Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). Here, the predicate ground found by the trial court was endangerment under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), and only the best-interest finding was challenged on appeal.

The opinion relied on the current Supreme Court of Texas sufficiency standards for parental termination cases:

• For legal sufficiency, the reviewing court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and deferring to credibility determinations. In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. 2022).
• For factual sufficiency, the court weighs disputed evidence contrary to the finding against the evidence favoring it and asks whether, on the entire record, a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002).

On best interest, the court reiterated several principles important to trial and appellate practice:

• The Holley v. Adams factors remain a useful but nonexclusive guide.
• The Department need not prove every Holley factor.
• Evidence supporting a predicate ground may also support best interest.
• The absence of evidence on some factors does not preclude affirmance.
• A factfinder may measure future conduct by past conduct and infer that endangering behavior will recur if the child is returned.

The court also cited Eastland authorities emphasizing that best interest is child-centered, not parent-centered, and that parental history of instability, danger, and inability to meet needs can justify a best-interest finding even without evidence on every factor.

Application

The Eleventh Court’s analysis was straightforward and practical. It treated the mother’s methamphetamine use during pregnancy not as an isolated moral failing, but as direct evidence bearing on the twins’ immediate physical safety and future welfare. The children were born drug-positive, required NICU care, and the mother admitted using methamphetamine as recently as one week before birth. That evidence alone strongly implicated the Holley factors concerning present and future physical danger, the children’s physical needs, and the mother’s parental judgment.

The court also placed substantial weight on the mother’s ongoing relationship with the father and her inability or unwillingness to protect the children from domestic violence. Her explanation was that drug use and instability were tied to abuse, but the record showed that she repeatedly invited the father back into her life and home, including after violent episodes. In best-interest analysis, abuse is not mitigated simply because the parent is also a victim; the relevant question is whether the parent can protect the children from recurring danger. The court treated the mother’s continued exposure of the family to the father as evidence that the same risks would likely persist.

Her conduct after birth further reinforced the trial court’s best-interest determination. These were medically fragile newborns, yet she visited inconsistently in the NICU, appeared at times that did not meaningfully support caregiving, and attempted to breastfeed despite repeated instruction that her methamphetamine use made that unsafe. To the court, that evidence was not merely about attendance or inconvenience. It bore directly on parental ability, insight, and willingness to prioritize the twins’ medical needs over her own preferences.

The Department’s difficulties in contacting her and implementing services completed the picture. She missed meetings, avoided home access, refused drug testing, refused to discuss a safety plan, declined to sign releases, and later became difficult for the caseworker to locate. Appellate courts routinely view such conduct as probative because it shows not only noncompliance, but also an inability to engage with the structure necessary to safely parent children, particularly newborns with heightened medical vulnerability. In that context, the trial court was entitled to infer from past conduct that the mother’s instability and poor decision-making would continue.

Holding

The court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the twins’ best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). Applying the deferential legal-sufficiency standard, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was warranted based on the mother’s prenatal methamphetamine use, the children’s positive drug tests at birth, domestic violence involving the father, and the mother’s conduct in the immediate post-birth period.

The court also held that the evidence was factually sufficient. Considering the entire record, including any contrary evidence and the mother’s explanations, the appellate court determined that the disputed evidence was not so significant as to prevent the trial court from reasonably forming a firm belief or conviction that termination served the children’s best interest. The trial court’s order was therefore affirmed.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, this case is a strong reminder that best-interest evidence is cumulative and thematic. Trial courts do not evaluate drug use, domestic violence, medical neglect, and service-plan noncompliance in silos; they assess whether the record as a whole shows parental judgment consistent with protecting children now and in the future. When representing the petitioner, this opinion supports building a narrative around risk persistence: prenatal substance abuse, continued alliance with an abusive partner, and resistance to remedial services can collectively justify severe restrictions even when the parent offers sympathetic explanations.

In private SAPCR or modification practice, the case is especially useful where one parent argues that substance use occurred “only during the relationship,” “only because of abuse,” or “only before the suit was filed.” The Eleventh Court’s approach underscores that the factfinder may credit those explanations yet still conclude the children remain at risk because the parent has not demonstrated protective capacity, sobriety, stability, or compliance. That matters in temporary orders, final conservatorship trials, and modification proceedings seeking supervised possession or geographic and safety restrictions.

For defense-side practitioners, the opinion shows the limits of mitigation evidence that lacks corroborated behavioral change. A parent cannot rely solely on testimony about intent, victimization, or love for the child. The record must show concrete protective action: separation from the abusive partner, protective orders where appropriate, documented treatment, clean tests, dependable visitation, engagement with medical providers, and consistent cooperation with the court’s directives. Without that evidentiary bridge, appellate courts are likely to defer to a trial court’s best-interest finding.

The case also has strategic value in briefing and oral argument because it reinforces the overlap between predicate-ground evidence and best-interest evidence. Lawyers should not artificially divide those subjects at trial. The same facts establishing endangerment often do the heavy lifting on Holley factors involving danger, parental ability, stability, and the propriety of the parent-child relationship.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record for the Petitioner

• Establish the timing, duration, and frequency of substance use, especially during pregnancy or while the child was in the parent’s care.
• Obtain medical records showing positive toxicology results for the parent and child.
• Tie drug use to concrete child-specific risks, such as NICU admission, withdrawal concerns, prematurity, or feeding and respiratory complications.
• Develop evidence of domestic violence, including police reports, photographs, witness testimony, and prior incidents of re-entry after assaults.
• Show not just that abuse occurred, but that the parent continued to expose the children to the abusive partner.
• Present evidence of missed visits, poorly timed visits, or conduct during visits showing impaired parental judgment.
• Prove refusal or evasion of drug testing, home assessments, safety planning, or releases of information.
• Use service-plan evidence to show inability or unwillingness to take corrective action.
• Frame the evidence through the Holley factors, but do not feel compelled to prove each factor independently.

Defending Against a Best-Interest Termination Finding

• Produce objective evidence of sobriety, including timely negative tests and documented treatment completion.
• Demonstrate sustained separation from the abusive partner, not merely verbal assurances.
• Offer proof of protective measures, such as a protective order, changed residence, blocked contact, or law-enforcement involvement.
• Show consistent visitation and meaningful involvement with the child’s medical and developmental needs.
• Document compliance with all court-ordered services and preserve receipts, certificates, attendance logs, and provider reports.
• Prepare a credible explanation for past conduct, but pair it with evidence of present behavioral change.
• Address the child’s current and future needs with a concrete parenting plan, housing evidence, and employment proof.
• Anticipate the inference that past endangering conduct will recur, and rebut it with dates, records, and corroborating witnesses.

Using This Case in Private Custody and Modification Litigation

• Cite the opinion when arguing that parental drug use can remain highly probative of best interest even if the parent claims the conduct was temporary.
• Use it to support restrictions where one parent continues to align with or return to a violent partner.
• Emphasize that medical vulnerability of young children heightens the significance of parental instability.
• Argue that refusal to cooperate with evaluations, testing, or third-party professionals reflects on parental judgment and future risk.
• Connect missed or superficial visitation to a broader pattern of inability to prioritize the child’s needs.
• Use the case to support supervised possession, phased reunification, or denial of expanded access until compliance is documented.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Parent’s Mistakes

• Do not refuse a requested drug test in a live conservatorship or CPS case.
• Do not minimize prenatal drug use when the child tested positive at birth.
• Do not continue contact with an abusive partner while asking the court to trust your protective judgment.
• Do not miss meetings with the Department, amicus, evaluator, or opposing parent’s requested professionals where court orders require cooperation.
• Do not ignore NICU or medical instructions and assume good intentions will offset unsafe conduct.
• Do not rely on partial service compliance without documenting sustained progress.
• Do not assume appellate courts will reweigh credibility or excuse instability because the parent offers sympathetic reasons.

Citation

In re R.H. and E.H., No. 11-25-00317-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 16, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~a9e757fe-fd3e-4400-8d1a-07c24e8ae4c3~~