In the Interest of H.P. Jr. and H.P. III, Children, 14-25-01026-CV, May 07, 2026.
On appeal from 313th District Court of Harris County, Texas
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of both parents’ rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support at least subsection (E) endangerment and the best-interest findings under Family Code section 161.001. The court treated the parents’ combined pattern of domestic violence, incarceration, criminal conduct, instability, untreated or unresolved substance-abuse and mental-health concerns, failure to complete services, and inability to meet the children’s medical and safety needs as a deliberate course of conduct that endangered the children.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this is a termination case, its reasoning matters across Texas family litigation because the same evidentiary themes routinely appear in SAPCR modifications, conservatorship disputes, supervised-access litigation, and divorce cases involving children. The opinion is a reminder that trial courts may infer present and future risk from a parent’s broader course of conduct—not merely from a single incident—and that domestic violence, repeated criminality, untreated instability, and noncompliance with court-ordered services can reshape conservatorship, possession, and decision-making rights long before a case reaches the termination stage. For family-law litigators, this case is also useful in framing how to build or attack a record on endangerment, stability, and best interest when incarceration overlaps with family violence and missed medical care.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department became involved when the younger child, H.P. III, was born in August 2024 and both he and Mother initially tested positive for opioids, though that was later attributed to hospital-administered morphine. Even so, the Department continued investigating. The record reflected escalating concerns about the infant’s health: by one month, he was extremely small, had dropped to the first percentile in weight, continued losing weight, and developed worsening diaper rash and thrush. The pediatrician advised that he be taken to the hospital, but the appellate record, as described by the court, did not show that Mother followed through. The younger child also had a possible heart issue requiring specialist follow-up, and the older child, who had a history of seizures, also needed neurological care. Mother canceled at least some of those appointments.
The family’s instability was not limited to medical neglect. Father was already jailed when the Department’s intervention began because he had assaulted Mother while she was pregnant with H.P. III. The opinion also notes a prior assault by Father on Mother during her pregnancy with H.P. Jr., along with a broader criminal history marked by violence. Mother, meanwhile, had a lengthy history of substance abuse, mental illness, and violent criminal behavior, including aggravated robbery. She had prior Department history dating back years, prior removals, and had already lost rights to two older daughters while losing custody of another.
The critical turning point came fifty-three days after the Department became involved. Mother was found unconscious and heavily intoxicated in a parking lot, with two-year-old H.P. Jr. standing beside her. This incident violated the Department’s safety plan, which required supervised contact through the maternal grandparents. When first responders revived her, Mother violently assaulted them, resulting in convictions for assaulting peace officers and a five-year prison sentence. After that, the trial court appointed the Department emergency temporary sole managing conservator.
Father was later released from jail in January 2025, but the record showed he did not complete required services and stopped visiting the children. Relative or fictive-kin placements were unsuccessful. By contrast, the children improved significantly in foster care, both in health and in environment. On that record, the Department pursued termination, and the trial court terminated under subsections (D), (E), and (N), plus best interest.
Issues Decided
The court decided the following issues:
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E), based on parental conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s additional predicate findings under subsections (D) and (N), though affirmance required only one predicate ground plus best interest.
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest findings under Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
- As to Mother’s appellate complaints, whether the Department made reasonable efforts toward reunification and whether the record supported the trial court’s findings in that regard.
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 at least one predicate ground under subsection (b)(1) and that termination was in the children’s best interest under subsection (b)(2).
On standard of review, the court relied on:
- Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007 for the clear-and-convincing definition.
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), for legal- and factual-sufficiency review in termination cases.
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009), for factual-sufficiency analysis under the heightened burden.
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006), for deference to the factfinder.
On subsection (E), the court emphasized several settled principles:
- Endangerment must result from the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, and failures to act.
- Subsection (E) requires more than a single act; it requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct.
- The court may consider conduct occurring both before and after the child’s birth.
- Conduct need not be directed at the child, and actual injury to the child is unnecessary if danger may be inferred from the parent’s misconduct.
- A child’s exposure to instability and uncertainty itself can constitute endangerment.
For those propositions, the court cited authorities including:
- Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
- In re P.W., 579 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987).
- In re F.E.N., 542 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).
Application
The court’s analysis reflects a common but important appellate pattern in termination cases: it did not isolate each parental failing and ask whether that one fact alone justified termination. Instead, it examined the full record for a sustained course of conduct demonstrating danger, instability, and inability to provide safe parenting.
As to Mother, the court focused on the convergence of medical neglect, substance-related dysfunction, violence, criminal history, prior Department history, and incarceration. The younger child’s alarming weight loss, untreated rash and thrush, and missed specialist follow-up supported an inference that Mother was not meeting even basic medical and nutritional needs. The older child’s unmet neurological care reinforced that concern. Those omissions did not stand in isolation. Mother had an extensive history with the Department involving drugs, alcohol, violence, inappropriate conduct, and unsafe parenting. Her prior loss of rights to other children mattered because it contextualized the current neglect as part of a longstanding pattern rather than an isolated lapse.
The September 2024 incident was especially significant because it tied together several endangerment themes at once. Mother was unconscious from intoxication in a public parking lot, with a toddler left standing beside her, in violation of a safety plan, and then violently attacked first responders. The court treated that event not as a standalone episode but as powerful evidence of a voluntary and dangerous course of conduct. Her resulting five-year imprisonment further compounded the instability and inability to provide care.
As to Father, the court treated domestic violence and criminality as central to endangerment. His assault on Mother during pregnancy with H.P. III, coupled with a prior assault during pregnancy with H.P. Jr., allowed the trial court to view violence toward the children’s mother as conduct endangering the children themselves. Once released from jail, Father did not rehabilitate the record. Instead, he failed to complete services and stopped visiting the children. That post-release conduct was important because it undermined any argument that incarceration alone explained his absence or noncompliance.
The foster-care evidence also mattered. The children’s improved health and environment after removal supported both the existence of prior danger and the trial court’s best-interest determination. In other words, the appellate court saw a contrast between the parents’ instability and the children’s progress in care, which reinforced the conclusion that termination served the children’s welfare.
Holding
The court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under subsection (E) as to both parents. The parents’ histories of violence, criminal conduct, incarceration, instability, and failure to address the children’s needs permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that each parent engaged in a course of conduct endangering the children’s physical or emotional well-being. Because one predicate ground plus best interest is sufficient, affirmance followed even without extended reliance on every challenged ground.
The court also upheld the best-interest findings. The same evidence supporting endangerment—especially domestic violence, repeated criminal behavior, missed medical care, substance-abuse and mental-health concerns, failure to complete services, lack of stability, and the children’s improvement in foster care—supported the conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interest.
As to Mother’s complaints concerning reasonable efforts and reunification-related findings, the court rejected those challenges and affirmed the judgment. In practical terms, Mother’s partial participation in services while incarcerated did not overcome the larger record showing long-term instability, prior child-welfare history, and current endangering conduct.
Practical Application
For practitioners, this case is a strong appellate citation when your theory is that endangerment is cumulative rather than episodic. If you represent the Department, a petitioner, or a child’s interests, the opinion supports framing family violence during pregnancy, repeated incarceration, unresolved substance-abuse or mental-health issues, missed medical care, and failed service-plan compliance as a single narrative of danger. The case is especially useful where the opposing party insists that each event can be individually explained away. The court’s reasoning shows that appellate courts will often accept a pattern-based theory if the record is developed coherently.
If you represent a parent, the case is a warning that partial compliance, excuses tied to incarceration, or isolated periods of apparent stability may carry little weight if the broader record reflects recurring violence, untreated dysfunction, or neglect of medical needs. Counsel should aggressively develop evidence of rehabilitation, treatment compliance, maintained contact, concrete post-release planning, and actual ability to provide a safe home. Merely disputing a few incidents will not neutralize a course-of-conduct theory.
Outside the termination context, the case has clear analogues in contested conservatorship and modification proceedings. A parent’s assaultive conduct toward the other parent, especially during pregnancy, can heavily influence restrictions on possession and access. Missed specialist care, unmanaged addiction, recurrent arrests, and failure to follow court orders can also support sole managing conservatorship, supervised visitation, geographic limitations, and targeted injunctions in divorce and SAPCR practice.
Strategically, the opinion also underscores the value of comparative evidence. Evidence that a child improved after removal—medically, behaviorally, developmentally, or environmentally—can be highly persuasive not only on best interest but on whether prior care was endangering. Litigators should not overlook that before-and-after contrast.
Checklists
Building an Endangerment Record Under Subsection (E)
- Document a course of conduct, not just a single crisis event.
- Tie criminal history to child safety, instability, and caregiving incapacity.
- Develop evidence of domestic violence, including violence directed at the other parent.
- Highlight violence occurring during pregnancy when relevant.
- Gather records showing missed medical appointments, failure to obtain follow-up care, or neglect of prescriptions and referrals.
- Present testimony connecting instability, uncertainty, and chaotic living conditions to emotional and physical endangerment.
- Include pre-birth and post-birth conduct where it shows a continuing pattern.
- Use service-plan noncompliance as part of the larger course-of-conduct story.
Proving Best Interest in Parallel with Predicate Grounds
- Show how the same endangering conduct affects present and future parental fitness.
- Compare the child’s condition before removal and after placement.
- Offer evidence of the child’s health, developmental gains, and stability in the current placement.
- Address the parent’s inability to meet basic needs consistently, including housing, supervision, and medical care.
- Demonstrate lack of sustained visitation or meaningful parent-child contact.
- Present evidence of the parent’s realistic post-trial plan, or the absence of one.
- Use guardian ad litem and caseworker testimony to synthesize the risk factors.
Defending a Parent Against a Pattern-Based Termination Case
- Confront the pattern theory directly; do not treat each allegation as isolated.
- Obtain treatment, counseling, or psychiatric records showing current stabilization.
- Prove completion—not attempted completion—of required services where possible.
- Develop post-release evidence of employment, housing, transportation, and childcare arrangements.
- Show consistent visitation and a quality parent-child bond.
- Address medical-care allegations with records, provider testimony, and proof of follow-through.
- Present corroborated evidence that prior incidents were aberrational and not ongoing.
- Demonstrate insight, accountability, and specific relapse-prevention or violence-prevention measures.
Using the Case in Conservatorship or Modification Litigation
- Argue that domestic violence and repeated criminality support restrictions short of termination.
- Seek sole managing conservatorship where the other parent’s instability creates ongoing risk.
- Request supervised possession when substance abuse, untreated mental illness, or violence remains unresolved.
- Use missed medical care as evidence bearing on the right to make educational and medical decisions.
- Frame incarceration not as a standalone ground, but as part of instability and inability to parent.
- Pair historical misconduct with recent noncompliance to show risk remains current.
Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Parent’s Problems
- Do not ignore a safety plan or treat its terms as informal.
- Do not assume release from incarceration cures prior endangerment concerns.
- Do not stop visiting the children during the case.
- Do not rely on partial services when core issues remain untreated.
- Do not minimize domestic violence because the children were not the direct targets.
- Do not leave medical red flags undocumented or unaddressed.
- Do not come to trial without a concrete stability plan supported by evidence.
Citation
In the Interest of H.P. Jr. and H.P. III, Children, No. 14-25-01026-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2026).
Full Opinion
~~4e1cebd2-d4f6-46a7-b5b7-713fb2f8d9a7~~
Share this content: