Endangerment Supports Termination | In re Z.S. (2026)

In the Interest of Z.S., Z.S., M.S. III, Children, 13-26-00120-CV, May 21, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of San Patricio County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), where the record showed chronic unsanitary living conditions, exposure to abuse and domestic violence, parental drug use, and ongoing safety concerns during the case. The same record, coupled with the children’s improvement in relative placement, also supported the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its reasoning carries directly into broader Texas family litigation, especially SAPCR modification, conservatorship, possession, and protective-order disputes arising alongside divorce or post-divorce proceedings. The opinion is a reminder that trial courts may treat environmental neglect, tolerated third-party abuse, domestic violence, substance use, untreated medical and hygiene hazards, and post-separation instability as part of a single endangerment narrative; for family-law litigators, that same evidentiary framework often drives restrictions on possession, supervised access, sole managing conservatorship, and limitations on a parent’s decision-making rights even where termination is not on the table.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved after a report that one of the children, Zoe, had suffered sexual abuse by a minor cousin. When investigators arrived at the paternal grandmother’s residence, where the children were staying, they found what the court described as unstable and highly unsanitary conditions: no food, feces and urine on the floor, rotten food on plates, and trash throughout the home. The children were removed in July 2024. Medical evidence at removal showed all three children had impetigo; Max also had abrasions, diarrhea, Sapo virus, and E. coli; and Zoe had multiple abrasions and an older laceration on her foot. The investigation further revealed that an adult male in the home tested positive for cocaine, and another child living there also tested positive for cocaine.

The record did not stop with the conditions existing at removal. During the pendency of the case, the Department received reports that the children returned from visitation with flea and bedbug bites and exhibited severe behavioral dysregulation after contact with the parents. The children were in therapy, and the evidence reflected anxiety, shame, irritability, disruptive behavior, fighting, and oppositional issues. There was also testimony that the parents’ trailer continued to present serious hygiene concerns. Zoe reported that the dogs were not taken outside, leaving urine and feces on the floor, and that Father urinated on the couch while sleeping, causing both girls to become wet from sitting on it. When the caseworker visited shortly before trial, she described a strong urine odor so severe that it made her nose burn.

The Department also presented evidence of parental drug use and family violence. Father tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine early in the case and again tested positive for marijuana shortly before trial. Mother also tested positive for marijuana during the case. There was testimony that Father had beaten Zoe during visitation shortly before trial, leaving discoloration on her buttocks, and testimony from the maternal grandmother that the children described Father tying up Mother in front of them and stabbing her. Mother admitted physical altercations with Father, though she disputed some of the more severe allegations. The parents completed services, but they paid no child support during the case.

By contrast, the evidence showed the children improved in placement with their maternal grandmother, Reggie. Their medical care became current, their physical conditions improved, and Max, who had developmental delay in speech at removal, was thriving in therapy.

Issues Decided

The court addressed the following issues:

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) based on knowingly placing or allowing the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) based on endangering conduct by the parents or by persons with whom they placed the children.
• Whether the evidence, together with at least one predicate ground, was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).

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 evaluated both legal and factual sufficiency under the heightened clear-and-convincing standard applicable in parental-rights cases.

As to subsection (D), the court applied the settled rule that endangerment may arise from the child’s environment, including the suitability and safety of living conditions and the conduct of persons in the home. “Endanger” means to expose the child to loss or injury or to jeopardize the child’s emotional or physical health; actual injury is not required.

As to subsection (E), the court applied the rule that a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct may constitute endangering conduct, including drug use, domestic violence, repeated poor judgment, and exposing children to abusive or dangerous persons. The conduct need not be directed at the child, and the court may consider actions occurring before and after the Department’s involvement.

On best interest, the court relied on the familiar nonexclusive framework associated with Holley v. Adams, including the children’s needs, present and future danger, parental abilities, stability of the proposed placement, acts or omissions indicating an improper parent-child relationship, and excuses for those acts or omissions.

Application

The court treated the evidence as showing more than a single episode of poverty or household disarray. It viewed the removal conditions, medical findings, and abuse concerns as proof that the parents had knowingly permitted the children to remain in surroundings that were objectively dangerous. The children were left in a home with filth, human or animal waste, rotten food, inadequate food supply, untreated infections, and exposure to persons tied to cocaine use. Mother’s own testimony materially strengthened the Department’s case because she admitted the children had been left with the paternal grandmother due to the parents’ financial difficulties and agreed the children were living in “pretty extreme conditions” when removed.

The subsection (E) analysis was equally cumulative. The court did not isolate one fact; it looked at the parents’ broader course of conduct. That course included leaving the children in a dangerous residence, exposing them to sexual-abuse risk and domestic violence, continuing unsafe hygiene conditions in the parents’ own trailer during the case, failing to maintain a sanitary home for overnight visitation, and continuing substance use despite Department intervention and court-ordered services. Father’s positive tests for methamphetamine and marijuana, Mother’s marijuana use, and Father’s relapse shortly before trial reinforced the finding that the endangering conduct was ongoing rather than historical only.

The court also appears to have given weight to evidence that the parents’ completion of services did not translate into sustained behavioral change. The caseworker’s testimony about the odor in the home immediately before trial, the reports of flea and bedbug bites after visitation, the allegations of physical discipline causing visible injury, and the parents’ failure to provide financial support all undermined any argument that services had resolved the underlying danger. In other words, compliance did not neutralize the record where the practical conditions affecting the children remained substantially the same.

On best interest, the court linked the same endangerment evidence to the children’s present and future needs. The children had significant emotional and behavioral issues, were receiving therapy, and required stability, supervision, and follow-through. The record showed improvement in relative placement: their medical needs were being addressed, Max was progressing in speech therapy, and their physical condition had improved. Against that, the parents offered little evidence of durable stability. The court therefore had a rational basis to conclude that termination, rather than return or a less restrictive arrangement, best served the children’s welfare.

Holding

The court held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D). The conditions in which the children were found, including pervasive filth, urine and feces on floors, rotten food, inadequate food, untreated medical issues, and exposure to drug-related risk in the home, permitted the trial court to find that the parents knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering surroundings.

The court also held the evidence legally and factually sufficient under § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The parents’ conduct, viewed as a course of behavior rather than in isolated incidents, included exposing the children to domestic violence, abuse risk, persistent unsanitary living conditions, and ongoing drug use. That combination was enough to show endangering conduct affecting the children’s physical and emotional well-being.

Finally, the court held the evidence sufficient to support the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). The children’s improved condition in relative placement, their therapeutic and medical progress, and the continuing instability and danger associated with the parents supported the trial court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers, this case underscores that endangerment is rarely proved through one dramatic fact alone. It is built through accumulation: the condition of the home, who was allowed around the children, untreated medical issues, evidence of domestic violence, drug screens, the children’s functioning before and after removal, and whether the parent’s conduct actually changed after services began. In that sense, In re Z.S. is a useful roadmap for both petitioners and respondents.

For Department and amicus counsel, the opinion highlights the importance of tying environmental neglect to concrete child-specific consequences. Medical findings at removal, therapy records, visitation regressions, photographs, and testimony comparing the children’s condition before and after placement all make the clear-and-convincing burden easier to carry. This is especially true where the parent argues that the case is really about poverty. The answer must be that the record shows not merely financial struggle, but tolerated danger.

For counsel representing parents, the case is a warning that technical service-plan compliance is not enough if the surrounding facts still signal instability. If the parent has completed classes but the home remains unsanitary, drug use continues, violence allegations persist, and the children return from visits dysregulated or physically affected, the finder of fact may view services as superficial rather than transformative. The defense has to prove durable correction, not partial participation.

The case also has strategic value in non-termination litigation. In custody modifications and divorce-related conservatorship disputes, this same fact pattern can support sole managing conservatorship, geographic restrictions, denial of expanded possession, supervised visitation, protective orders, and injunctions related to third-party exposure. Practitioners should expect opposing counsel to analogize to subsection (D) and (E) principles even when the live claim is short of termination.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record for the Petitioner

• Obtain photographs and testimony documenting the physical condition of every residence where the children stayed.
• Tie unsanitary conditions to specific risks: infections, abrasions, gastrointestinal illness, missed hygiene, pest exposure, or sleep disruption.
• Identify every adult and child in the home and secure drug-test, criminal-history, or CPS-history evidence where available.
• Develop evidence showing the parent knew of the conditions and nevertheless left the children there.
• Use therapy, school, medical, and caregiver records to show the children’s functioning before removal, during visitation, and after stable placement.
• Frame domestic violence and third-party abuse exposure as part of the endangerment course of conduct, even if the violence was not always directed at the child.
• Emphasize post-removal conduct, especially relapses, unsafe visitation conditions, and failure to internalize services.

Defending Against a Subsection (D) and (E) Case

• Separate poverty from endangerment with corroborated evidence of sanitation, food access, utilities, sleeping arrangements, and safety remediation.
• Present current, admissible evidence of changed conditions, not just promises or photographs selected by the parent.
• Address every positive drug test directly with treatment records, sponsor testimony, negative follow-up tests, and relapse-prevention evidence.
• Confront domestic violence evidence with protective measures, verified counseling, no-contact arrangements, and documented behavioral change.
• Show consistent support of the children, including financial contributions, supplies, attendance at appointments, and active coordination with caregivers.
• Prepare to rebut visitation-regression evidence with neutral witnesses, logs, therapist context, and evidence of transition-related causes.
• Do not rely on service completion alone; prove sustained implementation in daily life.

Using the Case in Conservatorship and Modification Litigation

• Plead environmental neglect and dangerous third-party exposure with concrete details rather than general allegations of “instability.”
• Seek temporary orders restricting overnight possession where the residence presents sanitation or safety concerns.
• Use medical and school records to show whether the child improves in a structured placement and regresses after contact.
• Develop evidence regarding domestic violence in the child’s presence, even if no criminal conviction exists.
• Request drug testing strategically and connect positive results to impaired parenting decisions.
• Ask for specific relief tailored to the risk: supervised possession, exchanges at neutral sites, therapy compliance, home-condition requirements, or injunctions concerning household members.

Trial Presentation Checklist

• Organize the proof chronologically so the court can see the ongoing course of conduct.
• Pair witness testimony with photographs, records, and admissions from the opposing party.
• Use the parent’s own testimony to establish knowledge, acquiescence, and lack of protective action.
• Show the difference between temporary improvement for court and sustained stability over time.
• Reserve time to prove best interest separately, even when the predicate-ground evidence is strong.
• Compare the child’s condition at removal with the child’s condition in the current placement.
• Make a record on both legal and factual sufficiency themes, anticipating appeal.

Citation

In the Interest of Z.S., Z.S., M.S. III, Children, No. 13-26-00120-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 21, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~74403931-3a0c-4849-b1c6-1ba54031a0c1~~