Constructive Abandonment and Continuing Danger | In re G.H. (2026)

In the Interest of G.H., a Child, 02-26-00068-CV, July 16, 2026.

On appeal from 97th District Court, Montague County, Texas

Synopsis

Section 161.001(f)(1) permits termination when the Department proves it made reasonable efforts to return the child, but clear and convincing evidence shows a continuing danger in the home still prevents reunification. In In re G.H., the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that ongoing drug use, missed testing, refusal of substance-abuse services, inconsistent visitation, and failure to correct unsafe living conditions were legally and factually sufficient to support the continuing-danger finding and affirm termination.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends well beyond CPS dockets. For Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCRs, modifications, geographic restrictions, and supervised-possession disputes, In re G.H. is a useful roadmap for how appellate courts evaluate evidence of ongoing household risk: not merely past misconduct, but whether the parent has actually neutralized present danger. The opinion also matters in divorce and custody litigation because the same categories of proof—substance use, unsafe cohabitants, noncompliance with recommended services, unstable employment, and inconsistent parent-child contact—regularly drive conservatorship, possession, and restriction decisions even when termination is not at issue.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

G.H. was born in January 2025 in a vehicle and was transported with Mother to a hospital, where both tested positive for methamphetamine. The Department became involved immediately and filed a suit seeking conservatorship and termination. After discharge, G.H. was placed with relatives who were also caring for her older brother.

At trial, the Department built its case around both prenatal and post-removal risk. The evidence showed that Mother used methamphetamine during pregnancy with Father’s knowledge, and that Father had his own methamphetamine history and had used after G.H.’s birth. Although both parents later produced negative methamphetamine tests, that was not the end of the story: they missed tests and continued testing positive for marijuana through trial. The Department also proved that both parents refused NA/AA and other substance-abuse components of their service plans because they believed they could overcome addiction on their own.

The record reflected broader instability as well. Mother and Father attended only a little over half of their allotted weekly visits and went four months without seeing the child at one point. Mother was arrested shortly after the birth and remained under indictment for abandoning or endangering a child based on G.H.’s positive methamphetamine test. The home environment also remained problematic because Father’s brother, a convicted child sex offender, lived in the same residence as Mother and Father, and the parents had not secured alternative housing despite the Department’s concerns. Employment was unstable, and Father had admitted in counseling that drug use was affecting his ability to keep jobs.

Against that backdrop, the Department also offered evidence about the child’s placement. G.H. was doing well in her foster home, was bonded to her foster parents, and looked to them to meet her needs.

Issues Decided

• Whether Family Code Section 161.001(f)(1) authorizes termination when the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child, but a continuing danger in the home still prevented reunification.
• Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s continuing-danger finding under Section 161.001(f)(1).
• Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding.
• Implicitly, whether the trial court’s termination order could stand where predicate grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1), best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2), and the additional Section 161.001(f) finding were all supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Rules Applied

The court applied the standard 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 and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The trial court found predicate grounds under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment), (N) (constructive abandonment), and as to Mother, (R) (child born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance).

The opinion is especially significant for its application of Section 161.001(f). In a Department-filed case, absent waiver, the trial court may not terminate unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent before trial and that, despite those reasonable efforts, a continuing danger remains that prevents the child’s return. That provision functioned here as an additional required finding, not a substitute for a predicate ground or for best interest.

The court also reiterated familiar appellate standards governing sufficiency review in termination cases, citing authorities including:

• Tex. Fam. Code §§ 101.007, 161.001(b), 161.001(f), 161.206(b)
• In re Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2020)
• In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012)
• In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002)
• In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012)
• In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014)
• In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006)
• In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002)
• In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013)
• Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976)

The court also noted, but rejected on preservation grounds, Mother’s constitutional argument that a recent amendment to the Texas Constitution required strict scrutiny in termination cases. The court stated that even if preserved, it would not apply strict scrutiny because existing termination protections sufficiently safeguarded constitutional rights.

Application

The Fort Worth court treated the continuing-danger finding as a present-tense inquiry. The central question was not whether the parents had some evidence in their favor—such as negative methamphetamine tests after January 2025—but whether the danger that led to removal had actually been remedied enough to permit safe return. On that point, the Department’s proof remained compelling.

The court looked at the total pattern. Mother used methamphetamine during pregnancy, Father used methamphetamine after the child’s birth, and both parents kept testing positive for marijuana through trial. Their missed drug tests permitted the trial court to view the drug evidence skeptically rather than credit isolated clean tests as proof of recovery. More importantly, the parents refused to engage in the very substance-abuse services designed to mitigate the risk. That refusal mattered because Section 161.001(f)(1) asks whether danger remains despite reasonable reunification efforts. When the Department offers services targeted to the danger and the parents reject them, the inference that the danger remains becomes much stronger.

The court also connected household conditions to the continuing-danger inquiry. The parents continued living in a home that included a convicted child sex offender, and they did not obtain safer housing despite the Department’s explicit concerns. That fact gave the trial court a concrete, ongoing reason to conclude the child could not yet be returned home. In other words, the risk was not historical only; it was embedded in current living arrangements.

Visitation and stability evidence reinforced the same narrative. Missing nearly half of the allotted visits and going four months without seeing the child undercut any claim that reunification was progressing. Unstable employment and Father’s acknowledgment that substance use interfered with jobs further supported the trial court’s view that the parents had not achieved the consistency necessary to provide a safe home. Taken together, the court held that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that the Department had made reasonable efforts, but the home remained unsafe for return.

On best interest, the court relied on familiar overlap between endangerment evidence and Holley-factor analysis. A child born exposed to methamphetamine, parents who continued substance use and declined treatment, unsafe cohabitants, sporadic visitation, and the child’s positive adjustment and bonding in the foster placement collectively supported the trial court’s best-interest finding.

Holding

The court held that termination under Family Code Section 161.001(f)(1) is available when the Department makes reasonable efforts to return the child and nevertheless proves by clear and convincing evidence that a continuing danger in the home prevents reunification. The statute does not require the Department to achieve reunification; it requires reasonable effort, followed by proof that return remains unsafe.

The court further held that evidence of ongoing parental drug use, missed drug testing, refusal to participate in substance-abuse services, and failure to correct unsafe living arrangements was legally and factually sufficient to support the continuing-danger finding. The parents’ later negative methamphetamine tests did not negate the broader evidence that the underlying safety threats persisted.

Finally, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support best interest, particularly in light of the child’s stability in foster care, bond with caregivers, and the parents’ unresolved substance-abuse and household-safety issues. Because the predicate grounds, Section 161.001(f)(1) finding, and best-interest finding were all supported, the termination order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For Department-side practitioners, In re G.H. is a strong appellate template for framing the “reasonable efforts/continuing danger” requirement as a paired showing: first, identify the services and reunification steps offered; second, tie parental noncompliance to a current safety barrier that still blocks return. The opinion suggests that courts will respond well to a record showing not merely parental history, but an unrepaired present condition—ongoing drug use, missed tests, untreated addiction, unsafe cohabitants, unstable employment affecting parenting capacity, and inconsistent contact with the child.

For parents’ counsel, the case is a warning against relying on partial compliance or isolated favorable facts. A few clean tests will not offset missed tests, continued marijuana use, or refusal of treatment. Nor will a general assertion that the parent can address addiction “without programs” carry much weight when the service plan directly targets the identified danger. If there is an unsafe person in the home, counsel should treat housing remediation as urgent and document every concrete step toward correction.

In private family-law litigation, the opinion offers useful analogies even outside the termination context. When litigating sole managing conservatorship, supervised possession, injunctive relief, or modifications based on endangerment concerns, the same evidentiary logic applies: a court is less interested in verbal assurances than in measurable risk reduction. Has the parent completed treatment? Is testing consistent? Has the parent changed residences, ended unsafe relationships, stabilized employment, and demonstrated reliable contact with the child? In re G.H. provides a practical framework for answering those questions.

The case also underscores the appellate importance of preservation. Mother’s constitutional strict-scrutiny argument failed because it was not preserved in the trial court. If counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of termination standards or invoke new constitutional provisions, the record must show a timely, specific presentation and ruling.

Checklists

Building a Section 161.001(f)(1) Record for the Department

• Document every reunification service offered, including referrals, scheduling, transportation assistance, and follow-up.
• Tie each service to a specific safety concern identified in the case.
• Prove parental participation or nonparticipation with records, provider testimony, and service-plan status reports.
• Develop evidence that the danger is current, not merely historical.
• Use missed drug tests, diluted tests, and continuing use of other substances as evidence that risk remains unresolved.
• Establish how unsafe household members or living arrangements prevent return of the child.
• Present evidence of visitation inconsistency as a marker of lack of progress toward reunification.
• Connect instability in work, housing, and daily functioning to child-safety concerns.
• Offer placement evidence showing the child’s present stability, attachment, and needs.

Defending Against a Continuing-Danger Finding for Parents

• Treat the case as a present-safety case, not a historical-excuse case.
• Complete substance-abuse treatment and support-program requirements rather than minimizing them.
• Avoid missed tests; in practice, missed tests are often treated as highly damaging.
• Obtain and preserve documentary proof of negative tests, completion certificates, attendance logs, and counseling progress.
• Remove unsafe individuals from the household or secure alternative housing early.
• Create a clean evidentiary record showing how the home is now safe for return.
• Maintain consistent visitation and document reasons for any unavoidable absences.
• Show stable employment or other reliable means of support.
• Prepare the client to explain prior conduct candidly and to demonstrate concrete corrective action.

Using In re G.H. in Private SAPCR or Modification Litigation

• Frame the issue around current risk to the child, not only past bad acts.
• Gather objective evidence of drug use, criminal exposure, unsafe cohabitants, and housing instability.
• Use service recommendations, counseling records, or treatment refusals to show unresolved danger.
• Highlight inconsistency in visitation, communication, or caretaking as evidence of impaired parental reliability.
• Contrast the child’s stability in the current placement with the uncertainty of the proposed return.
• Request tailored relief—supervised possession, geographic limits, injunctions, or exclusive conservatorship—based on the specific risk shown.

Preserving Appellate Issues in Termination Cases

• Raise constitutional challenges expressly and on the record in the trial court.
• Obtain a ruling or ensure refusal to rule is preserved.
• Distinguish legal-sufficiency, factual-sufficiency, and preservation complaints in post-trial strategy.
• Make sure objections and arguments track the statutory text at issue.
• Develop a record that addresses both predicate grounds and Section 161.001(f) separately.
• Preserve complaints about service-plan feasibility, reasonable efforts, and evidentiary gaps before appeal.

Citation

In the Interest of G.H., a Child, No. 02-26-00068-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 16, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~ae59ffe0-84ab-460d-9b3a-35a5d7be4344~~