Eleventh Court Affirms Termination Based on Evidence Supporting Best-Interest Findings as to Mother and Father

In the Interest of E.T., E.T., E.T., and E.D., Children, 11-25-00318-CV, April 30, 2026.

On appeal from 326th District Court of Taylor County, Texas

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s rights to four children and the father’s rights to one child, holding that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest findings under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The court emphasized that endangering conduct, substance abuse, failed monitored return, incarceration, and instability in parental judgment may together support a firm conviction that termination serves the children’s best interest, even when a parent has completed significant portions of a service plan.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCR modifications, conservatorship disputes, geographic restrictions, supervised possession issues, and even divorce cases involving parental fitness, the opinion reinforces a familiar but powerful point: trial courts may heavily weight a parent’s past conduct as predictive of future risk, and partial compliance with services does not neutralize evidence of relapse, criminal conduct, or impaired parental judgment. In custody litigation, this case is a reminder that best-interest evidence is cumulative, narrative, and credibility-driven; lawyers should build or attack the larger story of safety, stability, sobriety, and follow-through rather than over-focusing on any single Holley factor.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case arose from termination proceedings involving four children. The mother was the parent of all four children, and E.D.’s father was the father of the youngest child only. The record reflected a troubling history before the Department’s 2023 intervention. The mother had previously lost possession of her two oldest daughters in 2018, regained them after a final hearing in 2020, and continued allowing contact with the prior partner whose parental rights had been relinquished and whom she described as abusive and alcohol-abusing.

The Department became involved in December 2023 after a report that the mother arrived at the children’s elementary school appearing impaired, smelling of marihuana, stumbling over her words, and unable to formulate sentences. The Department had difficulty contacting the parents and assessing the home, and temporary managing conservatorship followed in February 2024.

At roughly the same time, E.D.’s father was federally charged in a drug-distribution conspiracy, later pleaded guilty to a distribution offense, and received a thirty-seven-month prison sentence followed by supervised release. The children were placed in foster care, and eventually all four were placed with the same foster family.

Both parents completed at least some service-plan requirements. The mother maintained housing, submitted to testing, communicated with the Department, attended visitation, and was described as bonded to the children. Her progress was sufficient that the Department initiated a monitored return by April 2025. But that placement failed in June 2025 after both the mother and one child, E.T.3, tested positive for cocaine. The opinion snippet indicates that the mother initially denied cocaine use before later disclosing additional information. That relapse, especially during a monitored return, became central to the best-interest analysis.

As to E.D.’s father, the record showed incarceration arising from serious drug-related criminal conduct. Although he engaged in prison-based services, his confinement and criminal history limited his present ability to parent and informed the court’s assessment of future stability and danger.

Issues Decided

The Eleventh Court decided the following issues:

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the four children under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the four children under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of E.D.’s father’s parental rights was in E.D.’s best interest under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of E.D.’s father’s parental rights was in E.D.’s best interest under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b): the Department had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both a predicate ground under subsection (b)(1) and that termination was in the child’s best interest under subsection (b)(2). The opinion notes that the trial court found endangerment grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) as to both parents, along with best interest.

For sufficiency review, the court relied on the Supreme Court of Texas standards in cases such as In re J.W., In re A.C., In re J.O.A., In re C.H., and In re J.F.C. Those cases establish the deferential review applicable in termination appeals: on legal sufficiency, the appellate court looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and asks whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction; on factual sufficiency, the court weighs disputed contrary evidence against the supporting evidence while still giving due deference to the factfinder’s role.

On best interest, the court invoked Holley v. Adams and reiterated several critical propositions:

• The Holley factors are non-exclusive.
• The Department need not prove every Holley factor.
• Evidence supporting predicate endangerment grounds may also support best interest.
• The absence of evidence on some Holley considerations does not prevent an affirmative best-interest finding.
• Past endangering conduct may be used to predict future danger and inability to meet the child’s needs.

That last point was especially important. The court expressly repeated that a factfinder may infer from a parent’s past inability to safely care for children that the same inability is likely to continue if the children are returned.

Application

The Eleventh Court’s analysis appears to have turned on the trial court’s ability to synthesize parental conduct into a forward-looking best-interest determination. As to the mother, the favorable evidence was real: she had stable housing, she participated in services, she tested negative for a period of time, she attended visitation, and the Department trusted her enough to initiate monitored return. But the court treated the collapse of that monitored return as highly probative. A positive cocaine test by the mother, coupled with a positive cocaine test by one of the children during reunification, directly undercut the argument that service-plan compliance translated into actual safety. In termination jurisprudence, relapse is damaging; relapse during monitored return is often devastating because it demonstrates risk despite maximum support, oversight, and a recent opportunity to reunify.

The court also appears to have considered the mother’s historical decision-making. The opinion references prior removals, continuation of relationships involving danger, and the earlier inability to protect the children from instability and endangerment. Under the cited cases, the factfinder was entitled to infer that this pattern would recur. In other words, the mother’s progress did not erase the significance of the larger record, and the trial court was not required to accept short-term improvement as outweighing evidence of ongoing danger.

As to E.D.’s father, the court had a different but equally familiar best-interest record: serious federal drug-distribution conduct, incarceration, and the resulting inability to provide day-to-day parenting, safety, and stability. His completion of available prison services did not compel a contrary result. The appellate court’s framing reflects a point litigators see often in termination and conservatorship cases alike: compliance evidence matters, but it does not outweigh criminal conduct and instability as a matter of law. The trial court could reasonably conclude that a parent imprisoned for narcotics-distribution conduct posed continuing concerns for the child’s present and future welfare.

The opinion also reflects strong adherence to appellate deference. The Eleventh Court repeatedly invoked the principle that the trial court is the sole arbiter of credibility and demeanor. That matters because best-interest findings usually depend less on isolated documentary proof than on the factfinder’s assessment of sincerity, accountability, insight, and the likelihood of future change. This case underscores how difficult it is to reverse a best-interest finding once the record contains endangerment evidence, instability, and a failed reunification effort.

Holding

The court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights to the four children was in their best interest under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). In affirming, the court necessarily concluded that the trial judge could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction based on the mother’s history of endangerment, the Department’s prior involvement, the failed monitored return, and the cocaine-positive test results affecting both the mother and one child.

The court also held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of E.D.’s father’s parental rights was in E.D.’s best interest. The father’s federal drug conviction, incarceration, and corresponding inability to provide a stable and safe home, even when viewed alongside his participation in available services, allowed the trial court to reach a firm conviction that termination served E.D.’s best interest.

Practical Application

For practitioners representing the Department or a child’s amicus/attorney ad litem, this case is a strong appellate blueprint for defending a best-interest finding where the record shows some parental compliance but also shows relapse, criminality, or a failed reunification effort. It confirms that you do not need a perfect Holley record; you need a coherent one. If the narrative demonstrates danger, instability, and an unacceptable risk of recurrence, the appellate court will generally defer to the trial court’s resolution.

For parents’ counsel, the opinion is a warning that “substantial compliance” is not an appellate safe harbor. If your client has favorable service-plan evidence, you must connect that compliance to present safety and future reliability. A failed monitored return, a new positive drug test, or evidence that a child was exposed to the same substance can overwhelm months of otherwise favorable proof. In these cases, the defense theme must be accountability plus durable change, supported by objective evidence.

The case is also useful outside termination suits. In modification or conservatorship litigation, opposing counsel will cite this line of cases to argue that past dangerous conduct predicts future danger and that the court may prioritize stability over biological ties. Lawyers handling divorce cases with contested conservatorship should therefore treat substance-abuse evidence, criminal exposure, and noncompliance with extraordinary seriousness, because those facts often migrate from temporary-orders hearings into the final best-interest narrative.

Strategically, the opinion suggests several recurring lessons:

• A monitored return is not merely a service milestone; it is an evidentiary stress test.
• Positive drug tests during reunification carry outsized persuasive force.
• Incarceration, especially for narcotics trafficking or distribution, remains highly probative on best interest even where the parent works services while confined.
• Trial-level credibility findings are rarely displaced on appeal, so the record must be built with appellate deference in mind.

Checklists

Building a Best-Interest Record for the Petitioner

• Tie predicate endangerment evidence directly to present and future best interest.
• Develop testimony showing how past conduct predicts future risk.
• Establish the children’s current placement stability and comparative safety.
• Highlight failed monitored return efforts as evidence that lesser interventions did not work.
• Introduce drug-test results with a clean foundation and chronology.
• Show how the parent’s conduct affected the child directly, not just abstractly.
• Elicit testimony about the child’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs now and going forward.
• Use service-plan compliance evidence carefully: acknowledge it, then show why it did not translate into safe parenting.

Defending a Parent Against Best-Interest Termination

• Do not rely on service-plan completion alone; connect compliance to measurable safety.
• Present clean, chronological drug-testing evidence, not just isolated negatives.
• Address relapse immediately with accountability, treatment proof, and expert framing where appropriate.
• If a monitored return failed, explain causation and corrective steps with documentation.
• Offer concrete evidence of support systems, childcare, housing, employment, and sobriety maintenance.
• Anticipate the “past conduct predicts future conduct” argument and rebut it affirmatively.
• Avoid minimizing criminal conduct, substance use, or prior Department history.
• Present corroborating witnesses who can testify to sustained change over time.

Handling Cases Involving Incarcerated Parents

• Document all available prison-based services completed by the parent.
• Develop evidence of release dates, supervised-release terms, housing plans, and employment prospects.
• Show efforts to maintain contact with the child, if permitted and appropriate.
• Address the underlying criminal conduct candidly and explain rehabilitation efforts.
• Present a realistic reunification timeline rather than a speculative one.
• Be prepared for the petitioner to argue that incarceration plus narcotics offenses inherently undermine stability.
• If seeking preservation rather than immediate reunification, consider narrower alternatives and build that record clearly.

Preserving the Appeal

• Make sure the final order clearly identifies each predicate ground and best-interest finding.
• Preserve complaints about excluded evidence, including offers of proof where needed.
• Request and admit all relevant service-plan documents and compliance records.
• Ensure drug-test records, criminal judgments, and placement evidence are formally admitted.
• Develop testimony on both favorable and unfavorable Holley factors so the appellate court sees a complete record.
• Remember that credibility determinations will be insulated on appeal; preserve objective evidence wherever possible.
• Frame sufficiency arguments specifically as legal sufficiency, factual sufficiency, or both.

Avoiding the Mother’s Appellate Problem

• Treat any reunification period as a zero-tolerance evidentiary phase.
• Advise the client that a relapse during monitored return can be case-dispositive.
• Obtain immediate treatment intervention after any positive test.
• Document every step taken after relapse to protect the children.
• Prepare the client to respond honestly and consistently when confronted by the Department.
• Do not assume prior negative tests will outweigh a later positive involving a child.
• Build evidence showing insight, changed associations, and elimination of environmental risk.

Avoiding the Father’s Appellate Problem

• Address criminal exposure early, before incarceration defines the case narrative.
• Where possible, present evidence separating the child from the criminal environment.
• Show lawful, realistic post-release plans with specifics, not general intentions.
• Document all efforts to parent despite incarceration.
• Provide evidence of family support and safe alternative caregiving arrangements.
• Confront the best-interest implications of narcotics offenses directly.
• Avoid positioning service completion as a substitute for present parenting capacity.

Citation

In the Interest of E.T., E.T., E.T., and E.D., Children, No. 11-25-00318-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 30, 2026, no pet.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~d614d997-5a57-426c-b456-de64dfbce12e~~