First District Affirms Termination of Father’s Parental Rights Based on Constructive Abandonment and Best Interest Findings

In the Interest of Z.A.A., a Child, 01-25-01056-CV, April 14, 2026.

On appeal from 313th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and the trial court’s best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). For practitioners, the opinion is a useful roadmap on what qualifies as “reasonable efforts” by DFPS when a parent is intermittently incarcerated, difficult to locate, and fails to maintain contact, visitation, or support despite periods of liberty.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical significance reaches far beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family law litigators handling SAPCR modifications, possessory conservatorship disputes, grandparent and kinship placements, or high-conflict custody matters arising out of divorce, the opinion reinforces several recurring trial themes: stability matters, a parent’s failure to maintain consistent contact matters, criminal conduct tied to drugs and domestic violence matters, and courts will give substantial weight to a child’s demonstrated success in a relative placement with a concrete permanency plan. The case also shows how a record built around missed opportunities, nonpayment of support, and nonparticipation in services can shape both conservatorship and best-interest outcomes even outside the formal termination context.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

DFPS originally filed suit in October 2023 seeking termination and conservatorship relief concerning Z.A.A. The child entered care after allegations of neglectful supervision connected to narcotics activity and the child being found in a vehicle with arrested relatives, narcotics present, and without a car seat. At the time of the appealed order, the child was six years old.

The trial court initially signed an order in December 2024 appointing DFPS as sole managing conservator but stopping short of terminating father’s parental rights. Father was given supervised visitation and ordered to pay child support. Meanwhile, the child remained placed with his maternal great grandfather, where he had been living during the case and, according to the witnesses, had experienced improved behavior and meaningful stability.

DFPS later moved to modify conservatorship and again sought termination. At the November 2025 hearing, the DFPS conservatorship caseworker testified that the great grandfather had been the only relative to provide real stability for the child, that he was meeting the child’s needs, and that he intended to adopt. Importantly, DFPS also developed testimony addressing an obvious appellate vulnerability: the great grandfather’s age. The record showed he had a backup caregiver plan through a supportive family member already licensed through a foster agency and already connected to one of the child’s siblings.

As to father, the evidence was unfavorable and consistent over multiple topics. The caseworker described a criminal history involving drugs and domestic violence, along with repeated incarcerations. Father was incarcerated in October 2023, released in May 2024, incarcerated again in October 2024 for about two months, then free from December 2024 until September 2025, when he was again jailed for a short period. Yet during that extended period out of custody, father did not visit the child, did not maintain contact, and did not provide meaningful child support. The great grandfather testified father had not seen the child since December 2024 and, even before that, father’s contact was limited to riding by on a bicycle and calling out to the child rather than engaging in real visitation.

On the reunification side, DFPS presented evidence that it created a Family Service Plan for father and made repeated efforts to locate and contact him. Those efforts included using known phone numbers, contacting father’s mother, following leads to another number that turned out disconnected, searching social media, checking prior addresses, and contacting father’s parole officer. The caseworker testified DFPS discussed the service plan with father in January 2024, but father did not meaningfully engage and had not responded to attempted contact since May 2024. Child Advocates supplied corroborating testimony that its volunteer also tried monthly to reach father without success and that father made little to no effort to support or remain involved with the child.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N)(i) that DFPS made reasonable efforts to return the child to father.
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2) that termination of father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Rules Applied

Termination required clear and convincing evidence of both a predicate ground under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). The court applied the familiar legal- and factual-sufficiency standards used in parental-rights cases, viewing the evidence through the lens of the heightened burden while still deferring to the factfinder’s credibility determinations.

On constructive abandonment, the pertinent statutory ground required proof that the child had been in DFPS’s permanent or temporary managing conservatorship for at least six months, that DFPS made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent, that the parent did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact with the child, and that the parent demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N).

The court’s discussion of reasonable efforts reflects settled termination law that DFPS need not prove ideal efforts or successful reunification efforts; it must show reasonable efforts under the circumstances. Creation of a service plan, attempts to communicate it, and efforts to locate an absent parent can satisfy that requirement, particularly where the parent is difficult to find or fails to respond.

On best interest, the court relied on the usual best-interest framework, including considerations associated with the Holley factors: the child’s needs, present and future danger, parental abilities, stability of the proposed placement, acts or omissions reflecting an improper parent-child relationship, and plans for the child. Criminal history, domestic violence, drug-related conduct, failure to support, and the comparative stability of the caregiver placement all remain highly probative in that analysis.

Application

The First Court treated the case as one where DFPS did enough, father did too little, and the child’s placement supplied a compelling permanency narrative. On the constructive-abandonment ground, the court focused first on the Department’s efforts. DFPS did not merely say father was unavailable; it built a record of outreach. It created a Family Service Plan, discussed it with father at least once, tried multiple phone numbers, followed up through family, pursued social media and historical addresses, and even checked with the parole officer. That evidence mattered because appellate complaints on subsection (N) often center on whether the Department proved more than passive case management. Here, the record showed repeated, multi-channel attempts to engage and locate father.

The court then paired those efforts with father’s own conduct. Father had long stretches outside jail, especially from December 2024 to September 2025, yet still failed to visit or maintain meaningful contact with the child. He also failed to provide consistent support. In other words, incarceration did not explain the whole record; even during periods of freedom, father remained absent. That distinction helped the court conclude the evidence was sufficient not only on reasonable efforts, but also on the related elements of failure to maintain contact and inability to provide a safe environment.

The best-interest analysis was similarly fact driven. The child’s great grandfather had provided stable care for an extended period, the child’s behavior improved in that setting, and the great grandfather intended to adopt. The Department also anticipated and neutralized the argument that the caregiver’s advanced age made the placement too uncertain by presenting evidence of a backup caregiver plan supported by a broader family network. Against that stability, the court weighed father’s criminal history involving narcotics and domestic violence, his absence from the child’s life, his nonparticipation in services, and his failure to show any meaningful lifestyle change demonstrating safety and reliability. The narrative was not merely that father had problems; it was that the child already had a functioning, stable, and permanent alternative.

Holding

The First Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that DFPS made reasonable efforts to return the child to father under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N)(i). The Department’s proof that it created a Family Service Plan and repeatedly attempted to locate and contact father through available phone numbers, family members, social media, prior addresses, and the parole officer was enough to satisfy the reasonable-efforts component, particularly given father’s persistent lack of response and nonparticipation.

The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The child’s stability and improvement in the great grandfather’s home, the adoption plan, the existence of a backup caregiver, and father’s criminal history, absence, non-support, and failure to address safety concerns together provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for termination.

Practical Application

For DFPS and child-advocacy counsel, the opinion underscores that “reasonable efforts” should be documented as a chronology, not a conclusion. A bare statement that the Department tried to reach a parent is rarely as persuasive as testimony showing each phone number called, each relative contacted, each address checked, each social-media search performed, and each attempt to coordinate through supervision or parole. This case is especially useful where the parent is intermittently incarcerated and later argues the Department did not adequately facilitate reunification.

For counsel representing parents, the opinion is a warning that intermittent incarceration does not insulate a client from constructive-abandonment findings when there are substantial periods of non-incarceration coupled with no visitation, no support, and no meaningful engagement. If a client is hard to reach, counsel must create a clean record of contact information, barriers to participation, efforts to communicate, and requests for services or visitation. Otherwise, the appellate record will likely read as voluntary disengagement rather than systemic failure.

For litigators in non-termination custody disputes, the reasoning is equally useful. Stability with a relative caregiver, behavioral improvement in placement, a defined permanency plan, and evidence of criminal conduct involving drugs or family violence can strongly influence best-interest determinations in modification suits and conservatorship contests. This opinion gives trial lawyers a good template for presenting kinship care not as a temporary stopgap, but as a durable and protective placement.

A few strategic takeaways stand out:

• Build the “reasonable efforts” record with specifics, dates, methods, and outcomes.
• Do not rely on incarceration alone to explain a parent’s absence; account for periods when the parent was free.
• In kinship-placement cases, address foreseeable weaknesses head-on, such as caregiver age, health, or household composition.
• Use support history, visitation history, and service-plan participation as interconnected evidence of commitment, capacity, and best interest.
• When representing the parent, turn silence into a documented explanation early, or the record will harden into abandonment.

Checklists

Building the DFPS Reasonable-Efforts Record

• Prepare and update the Family Service Plan promptly.
• Document when and how the plan was explained to the parent.
• Maintain a dated log of every phone call, text, email, letter, and in-person attempt.
• Identify each phone number used and whether it was active, disconnected, or unanswered.
• Contact known relatives and document the substance of those communications.
• Search prior addresses and note the results.
• Use available social-media channels and preserve screenshots or notes of those efforts.
• Contact probation or parole officers when appropriate and document the response.
• Show not just attempts to find the parent, but attempts to facilitate reunification once located.

Proving Constructive Abandonment

• Establish that the child remained in DFPS conservatorship for the statutory period.
• Show reasonable efforts by DFPS to return the child.
• Present evidence of missed visits and lack of significant contact.
• Separate periods of incarceration from periods of liberty.
• Highlight failures to support the child financially or otherwise during periods of freedom.
• Connect the parent’s conduct to an inability to provide a safe environment.
• Use corroborating witnesses when possible, including caregivers and CASA or Child Advocates volunteers.

Strengthening the Best-Interest Case

• Show the child’s present functioning in the placement.
• Offer evidence of behavioral, emotional, educational, or medical improvement.
• Present a clear permanency plan, including adoption if applicable.
• Address vulnerabilities in the placement proactively, such as age or health of the caregiver.
• Develop testimony regarding backup caregivers or extended-family support.
• Contrast the stability of the placement with the parent’s instability, criminal conduct, substance abuse, or violence.
• Include evidence of the parent’s failure to participate in services designed to address safety concerns.

Defending a Parent Against a Subsection (N) Claim

• Make sure the client’s current phone number, address, email, and emergency contacts are in the record.
• Confirm the client receives and understands the service plan.
• Document barriers to compliance, including incarceration, transportation, housing instability, or communication restrictions.
• Request visits affirmatively and preserve those requests in writing.
• Tender support when possible and preserve proof of payment or attempted payment.
• Build a record of efforts to communicate with the child and caregiver.
• If services were unavailable or impracticable, present evidence explaining why.
• Avoid unexplained periods of silence; appellate courts read silence as abandonment.

Presenting a Kinship Placement for Permanency

• Establish the duration and success of the placement.
• Prove the caregiver meets the child’s daily needs.
• Show the caregiver’s financial and emotional capacity.
• Address household composition and safety concerns directly.
• Develop a backup-caregiver plan and identify the proposed substitute caregiver.
• Show support from the broader family network.
• Tie the placement to continuity, sibling relationships, and long-term permanency.

Citation

In the Interest of Z.A.A., a Child, No. 01-25-01056-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 14, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c1706a62-8ec3-4957-803a-5a6657578ee1~~