Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(Q) Supports Termination | In the Interest of I.G. (2026)

In the Interest of I.G., a Child, 07-26-00094-CV, June 16, 2026.

On appeal from 316th District Court, Hutchinson County, Texas

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals stated that Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory termination grounds and the best-interest finding, and the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. From the opinion excerpt provided, the appellate court’s detailed ground-by-ground analysis is not included; what the excerpt does show is the governing termination framework, the trial court’s predicate findings under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P), and (Q), and the trial court’s best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this case is most relevant in the parent-child context rather than divorce property litigation. It underscores the familiar appellate structure in termination cases: the Department must prove at least one predicate ground under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and prove best interest under § 161.001(b)(2) by clear and convincing evidence, and the appellate court reviews those findings under heightened legal- and factual-sufficiency standards. Even outside termination practice, the opinion is a useful reminder that family-law cases involving substance use, criminal proceedings, caregiver instability, and relative placements often develop evidentiary records on parallel tracks that trial counsel must preserve carefully for appeal.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The opinion states that shortly after I.G.’s birth, law enforcement and the Department were called to Mother and Father’s home to investigate allegations of physical neglect of I.G. and methamphetamine use by Mother. According to the opinion, Mother refused to cooperate with law enforcement and left the home. During the Department’s investigation, concerns about Mother’s methamphetamine use were validated.

The opinion also states that the home was found to be in disrepair, with no running water and no crib, diapers, baby wipes, or anything indicating the parents were able to care for a child there. The Department learned that I.G., who was then three-and-a-half months old, had been left with the paternal grandparents. The Department then took emergency possession of I.G., filed its petition for protection, conservatorship, and termination, and requested emergency temporary managing conservatorship. The trial court entered an emergency order citing a continuing danger to I.G.’s physical health or safety if returned to a parent.

After the adversary hearing, the Department was appointed temporary managing conservator, and I.G.’s placement with the paternal grandparents continued. The opinion notes that two of I.G.’s older siblings were also living with the paternal grandparents and another sibling was living with the maternal grandparents.

The Department developed a family service plan for Mother, but the opinion states she was incarcerated in the Carson County Jail and unable to complete the recommended services. During the case, Mother was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and sentenced to forty-five years’ incarceration. Mother did not attend the final hearing.

At the time of the final hearing, I.G. was almost two years old. A permanency specialist with St. Francis Ministries testified that I.G. was happy, content, and doing very well in his placement with the paternal grandparents. The opinion further states that after entering that placement, I.G. was enrolled in Early Childhood Intervention services three times per week to improve motor skills and speech development, that he was walking and becoming more verbal, and that the paternal grandparents were in the process of becoming licensed so they could adopt him.

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds listed in Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P), and (Q), and also found that termination was in I.G.’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). The Department was appointed permanent managing conservator, and Mother appealed.

Issues Decided

The opinion excerpt identifies these issues before the court:

• Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the statutory grounds for termination.
• Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the best-interest finding.

Because the excerpt provided ends after the standard-of-review section, it does not set out a more detailed breakdown of how the court framed or resolved each challenged predicate ground.

Rules Applied

The opinion expressly recites the core termination standards and authorities:

• Termination under Family Code § 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of:
• at least one predicate act or omission under § 161.001(b)(1); and

• best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).

• “Clear and convincing evidence” is defined by Family Code § 101.007 as the measure or degree of proof that produces in the mind of the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.

• Termination cannot rest solely on best interest. The opinion cites Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987), and In re K.C.B., 280 S.W.3d 888, 894 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied).

• Only one predicate finding under § 161.001(b)(1) is necessary to support termination if there is also a best-interest finding. The opinion cites In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003).

• On legal sufficiency review, the court looks at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. The opinion cites In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344–45 (Tex. 2009).

• On factual sufficiency review, the court gives due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing. The opinion cites In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002), and In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002).

• The opinion also reiterates that the clear-and-convincing standard does not require the evidence to negate all reasonable doubt or be uncontroverted, and that the factfinder resolves credibility questions and evidentiary conflicts. For those propositions, the court cites In re R.D.S., 902 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, no writ), and In re B.R., 950 S.W.2d 113, 121 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ).

Application

From the excerpt provided, the court’s application section is not included. What the excerpt does show is the factual setting the appellate court identified before stating that it affirmed the judgment and the legal framework it said governs review.

That matters for practitioners because the excerpt reflects the kind of record that commonly drives termination litigation: allegations of neglect shortly after birth, evidence concerning substance use, home-condition evidence, incarceration during the pendency of the case, a criminal conviction and sentence entered while the case is pending, inability to complete services because of incarceration, and evidence concerning the child’s progress in a relative placement. The trial court’s judgment rested on multiple predicate grounds—§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P), and (Q)—plus a best-interest finding. The appellate court then recited the settled rule that one supported predicate ground, together with best interest, is sufficient to support termination.

Because the opinion text supplied here stops after the standard of review, however, it would overstate the record to attribute a specific appellate rationale beyond that. In other words, the excerpt supports discussion of the governing framework and the factual posture, but not a precise statement that the court affirmed on one particular predicate ground rather than another.

Holding

The opinion excerpt expressly states that the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to I.G. That is the holding established by the text provided.

The excerpt also establishes that Mother’s appellate complaints challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both the statutory termination grounds and the best-interest finding. But because the excerpt ends before the court’s merits analysis, the specific basis on which the appellate court rejected those sufficiency challenges is not shown in the text provided.

Practical Application

Texas family-law litigators should treat this opinion as a reminder that termination appeals are won or lost on the record assembled well before trial. When incarceration and a pending criminal case are part of the factual landscape, counsel should expect the Department to build a record not only on the parent’s conduct and current placement, but also on timing: when the petition was filed, what services were offered, what the parent could or could not complete, and what the child’s needs and placement status looked like by final hearing.

For petitioner’s counsel, the practical lesson is to develop each pleaded predicate ground independently and to avoid assuming that one compelling fact—such as a lengthy sentence—will carry the entire case without careful proof. The trial court here found multiple grounds, and the appellate court reiterated the one-ground-plus-best-interest rule, which remains central to appellate risk management.

For parent-side counsel, the case highlights the need to confront adverse proof early and specifically. If the client is incarcerated, the record should address not just the fact of incarceration, but any evidence relevant to care options, services, contact with the child, and the parent’s position on conservatorship and permanency. Even where the odds are difficult, a thin defensive record leaves very little room for a meaningful sufficiency challenge on appeal.

In custody and SAPCR practice more broadly, the opinion is also a useful analog for cases involving relative placements and developmental evidence. Trial lawyers should pay close attention to how service providers, placements, and permanency witnesses document the child’s condition at removal, the child’s progress in placement, and the long-term plan for the child, because those facts often become central features of the final record.

Checklists

Building the Termination Record

• Plead each predicate ground you intend to pursue under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1).
• Prove best interest under § 161.001(b)(2) with evidence separate from the predicate conduct.
• Establish the petition filing date clearly in the record.
• Offer clear evidence regarding the parent’s living conditions, conduct, and ability to care for the child.
• Develop testimony about the child’s placement, functioning, needs, and permanency plan.
• Preserve exhibits and testimony showing what services were offered and whether they were completed.

Handling Cases Involving Incarceration

• Confirm the precise criminal charge, conviction status, and sentence.
• Tie the incarceration evidence to the statutory theory actually pleaded.
• Clarify whether incarceration affected the parent’s ability to complete services.
• Create a record regarding the parent’s attendance or non-attendance at hearings.
• Address whether there are alternative caregivers proposed by the parent, if supported by the evidence.
• Avoid relying on conclusory testimony where documentary proof is available.

Preparing for Sufficiency Review on Appeal

• Request and obtain a reporter’s record covering all merits hearings.
• Make sure the final order identifies the predicate grounds found by the trial court.
• Challenge adverse findings with precision in post-trial and appellate briefing.
• Distinguish legal-sufficiency and factual-sufficiency complaints.
• Remember that one supported predicate ground plus best interest will support affirmance.
• Frame appellate arguments around the evidence actually admitted, not facts assumed from the pleadings.

Parent-Side Risk Reduction

• Address service-plan compliance early and document barriers to completion.
• If incarceration is involved, present admissible evidence explaining the client’s circumstances.
• Develop evidence, where available, concerning the parent’s proposed care arrangements for the child.
• Preserve objections to unsupported or conclusory testimony.
• Ensure the parent’s position on placement, conservatorship, and termination is clearly stated in the record.
• Do not leave best-interest evidence unanswered simply because predicate grounds are contested.

Citation

In the Interest of I.G., a Child, No. 07-26-00094-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 16, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~5ece8722-008a-4d63-93e0-3ae963c15872~~