Endangerment Evidence Supports Termination | In re I.C. and K.C. (2026)

In the Interest of I.C. and K.C., Children, 06-26-00026-CV, July 10, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2, Gregg County, Texas

Synopsis

Legally sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) where the record showed Father’s drug use, repeated missed drug tests, incarceration, criminal instability, and failure to maintain meaningful contact with the child. The Texarkana Court of Appeals held that this endangerment evidence, combined with proof that the child was thriving in a stable adoptive placement, also supported the best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2).

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its significance extends well beyond CPS practice. Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCR modifications, conservatorship restrictions, geographic restrictions, supervised possession disputes, and even divorce cases involving children should treat this opinion as a current roadmap for how appellate courts evaluate instability, substance abuse, incarceration, and parental non-participation when assessing danger to a child’s physical or emotional well-being. The opinion reinforces that a pattern of conduct—not merely a single act—can carry dispositive weight, and that evidence commonly developed in custody litigation, such as drug tests, missed tests, housing instability, criminal charges, and minimal parent-child contact, can become outcome-determinative when the issue is parental fitness.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department filed suit to terminate Father’s parental rights to Ian after concerns arose during an investigation initially tied to Mother’s failure to follow through with medical appointments for the children. The investigation widened into substance-abuse concerns. Mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana metabolite, and Father was unavailable at first because he was incarcerated.

Once released, Father was given court-approved family-service plans. Those plans required, among other things, financial stability, a stable residence, and sobriety. The evidence showed partial compliance: Father completed certain assessments, a psychological evaluation, and a parenting class. But the core risk factors remained unresolved. He later tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine, then again for methamphetamine and marijuana metabolite. He was participating in substance-abuse counseling at the time of trial, but only after those positive results.

The record also reflected repeated incarceration and continued criminal exposure. Father had initially been jailed during family-based safety services on a federal detainer, and later was incarcerated in Gregg County for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. He also had pending charges for marijuana possession and refusing to identify himself as a fugitive. Department witnesses emphasized that these periods of incarceration and criminal instability impaired Father’s ability to provide a safe and stable environment.

Equally important, Father missed multiple requested drug tests over several months, and the Department treated those missed tests as presumed positives. He was even given a second chance for one missed test and still refused to participate. The evidence also showed a near-total lack of contact with the child after placement: Father had not seen Ian since removal and had only one brief telephone contact lasting roughly five to six minutes.

By contrast, the child was doing well in foster care. The foster home was described as safe, appropriate, financially stable, and adoptive. The child was bonded to the foster parents, who were meeting his educational, medical, and dental needs. Both the permanency specialist and CASA supported termination as being in the child’s best interest.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) that Father knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) that Father engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being.

• Whether the evidence supporting endangerment, together with the broader evidentiary record, supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2).

• Whether the termination judgment should be affirmed without reaching every additional predicate ground once grounds (D), (E), and best interest were sustained.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b): the Department must prove at least one predicate ground under Section 161.001(b)(1) and must also prove that termination is in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2), all by clear and convincing evidence.

The opinion reiterates several bedrock appellate standards:

• Parental-rights termination implicates constitutional interests and therefore requires heightened judicial scrutiny.

• “Clear and convincing evidence” means proof that produces in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.

• In legal-sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, assumes the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of the ruling if it reasonably could have done so, and disregards evidence that could reasonably have been disbelieved.

The court relied on the established principle that only one predicate ground plus best interest is generally necessary to affirm termination. But because findings under subsections (D) and (E) carry collateral consequences for future parental-rights litigation, appellate courts specifically address those grounds when challenged.

The authorities referenced in the opinion include:

• TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), and § 161.001(b)(2)
• TEX. FAM. CODE § 101.007
• In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018)
• In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019)
• In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014)
• In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002)
• In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005)
• In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006)
• In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002)
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Application

The court’s analysis reflects a practical, pattern-based view of endangerment. It did not isolate Father’s drug use, incarceration, missed drug tests, or lack of contact as standalone facts. Instead, it treated them as interlocking indicators of a continuing course of conduct that jeopardized the child’s physical and emotional well-being.

On subsection (D), the conditions-or-surroundings ground, the court had before it evidence that Father left the child in an environment clouded by parental drug use and instability. Although the opinion excerpt emphasizes Father’s conduct more than any discrete dangerous residence condition, Texas courts routinely recognize that a child’s environment includes the parental home life created by substance abuse, criminal exposure, and instability. The evidence permitted the inference that Father knowingly allowed the child to remain in surroundings shaped by those risks.

On subsection (E), the conduct-based endangerment finding was even more straightforward. Father tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana metabolite during the case, repeatedly failed to appear for drug testing, and continued to face incarceration and criminal charges. The court accepted the Department’s evidence that incarceration undermines a parent’s ability to provide stability and protection and that substance abuse compromises the ability to meet a child’s daily needs. The fact that Father completed some services did not erase the significance of his continued drug-related issues and instability. Partial compliance did not neutralize endangerment.

The same evidence also fed directly into best interest. Father had not maintained a meaningful relationship with Ian during the case. Meanwhile, the child was thriving in a safe, stable, adoptive placement and was bonded to the foster family. The trial court was entitled to weigh Father’s unresolved instability against the child’s demonstrated need for permanence and the foster placement’s proven ability to meet that need. On that record, the appellate court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination served the child’s best interest.

Holding

The court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D). The evidence of drug use, instability, and Father’s knowing tolerance of an environment shaped by those dangers permitted the trial court to conclude that the child was placed in or allowed to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.

The court also held that legally sufficient evidence supported the finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E). Father’s own course of conduct—positive drug tests, repeated missed tests treated as presumed positives, incarceration, pending criminal matters, and failure to maintain involvement with the child—constituted endangering conduct within the meaning of the statute.

Finally, the court held that the endangerment evidence, together with proof that the child was safe, bonded, and thriving in an adoptive placement, supported the best-interest finding under Section 161.001(b)(2). Because one or more predicate grounds and best interest were sustained, the court affirmed the termination judgment.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, this opinion is useful in at least four settings.

First, in termination litigation, it is a reminder that service-plan completion is not a safe harbor. If the parent continues using drugs, misses tests, cycles through jail, or fails to maintain contact with the child, the Department can still carry subsections (D) and (E). Trial counsel should therefore build the narrative around unresolved risk, not merely technical compliance.

Second, in non-termination custody disputes, this case offers a persuasive framework for proving or resisting restrictions on conservatorship and possession. A parent’s positive drug tests, refusals to test, criminal instability, and prolonged absence can support supervised visitation, denial of expanded possession, or sole managing conservatorship in the other parent. Even where termination is not at issue, the court’s endangerment reasoning translates naturally into best-interest and safety arguments under the SAPCR statutes.

Third, for appellate preservation, this opinion underscores the importance of developing a concrete evidentiary record on both the parent’s conduct and the child’s placement. The Department prevailed not only because it proved Father’s instability, but because it paired that proof with testimony that the child was bonded, thriving, and in an adoptive home meeting all needs. Practitioners on either side should be intentional about both halves of that equation.

Fourth, for defense counsel representing the parent, this case shows the danger of unexplained absences and unaddressed missed tests. In practice, missed tests are often treated as positive tests, and appellate courts regularly accept that inference where supported by testimony. If there is a benign explanation—transportation, employment conflict, notice problem, incarceration timing—it must be developed in the record. Silence will usually be construed against the parent.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record for the Petitioner

• Obtain certified or properly admitted drug-test results, including panel details and dates.
• Elicit testimony explaining why missed drug tests are treated as presumed positives.
• Develop a timeline showing repeated drug use, relapses, refusals, and no-shows.
• Tie incarceration and pending charges to instability, lack of caregiving capacity, and inability to protect the child.
• Present evidence of minimal visitation, missed contact, or failure to maintain a parent-child bond.
• Establish what services were offered, what was completed, and what core risks remained unresolved.
• Put on testimony about the child’s current placement, stability, bond, and adoptive prospects.
• Make sure the record supports both predicate grounds and best interest, not just one or the other.

Defending Against Subsections (D) and (E)

• Challenge the causal link between the alleged conduct and actual endangerment.
• Explain every missed drug test with admissible evidence, not argument alone.
• If transportation was a barrier, document it with texts, emails, ride logs, or witness testimony.
• Show sustained sobriety with clean tests close in time to trial.
• Present evidence of stable housing, employment, and a support network.
• Demonstrate consistent efforts to visit, call, support, and bond with the child.
• Distinguish old criminal history from current functioning if the charges are stale or nonviolent.
• Do not rely solely on partial service-plan compliance; prove present stability and reduced risk.

Preserving the Record for Appeal

• Specifically challenge subsections (D) and (E) if those findings are made.
• Request and review the complete reporter’s record, including all exhibits and drug-test documentation.
• Preserve objections to hearsay, conclusory testimony, and unsupported assumptions about testing or criminal matters.
• Develop competing evidence on best interest, including the parent’s current condition at the time of trial.
• Address adverse inferences arising from nonappearance at trial or hearings.
• Ensure the appellate briefing separately analyzes legal sufficiency as to each challenged ground and best interest.

Using the Case in SAPCR, Divorce, and Modification Litigation

• Cite the case when arguing that repeated drug use and missed testing justify supervised possession.
• Use the court’s instability analysis to support sole managing conservatorship for the more stable parent.
• Frame incarceration and criminal volatility as best-interest considerations affecting possession terms.
• In modification suits, use post-decree positive tests or new criminal conduct to prove a material and substantial change.
• Where appropriate, argue that failure to maintain contact reflects impaired parental judgment and diminished reliability.
• Pair misconduct evidence with affirmative evidence that the proposed custodial arrangement is stable and child-centered.

Citation

In re Interest of I.C. and K.C., Children, No. 06-26-00026-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~36147390-3950-4650-bf1a-adb0be646217~~