Best-Interest Evidence Supports Termination | In re J.Z.L.-H. (2026)

In the Interest of J.Z.L.-H., aka J.L.-H., a Child, 01-26-00305-CV, September 22, 2026.

On appeal from 313th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Mother’s repeated cocaine use, unresolved mental-health and medication-compliance concerns, incomplete services, history involving six older children, and limited ability to provide consistent supervision permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was warranted.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its evidentiary lessons extend directly to conservatorship, possession, and modification disputes. The opinion demonstrates how courts assess a parent’s conduct as a longitudinal pattern rather than as a series of isolated incidents: substance use, mental-health treatment, medication compliance, employment, supervision, prior child-welfare cases, domestic violence, and the stability of the proposed placement may collectively establish future risk.

For custody litigators, the strategic point is that recent compliance and appropriate supervised visits may not overcome a documented history of instability—particularly when the parent has not demonstrated sustained behavioral change outside a controlled setting. Conversely, counsel defending against restrictive conservatorship or termination must do more than show attendance at services. The record should establish insight, measurable improvement, sustained sobriety, treatment compliance, and a workable plan for safely parenting the particular child.

The case does not alter Texas property-division law. In a divorce proceeding, however, the same evidence may materially affect temporary orders, conservatorship, possession, geographic restrictions, injunctions, and safety conditions even when it has no direct bearing on the just-and-right division of the marital estate.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Junior was Mother’s seventh child. None of her six older children lived with her at the time of trial. One had been adopted after Mother relinquished her rights, four were in foster placements with the Department of Family and Protective Services serving as permanent managing conservator, and another had been placed with a family member under a power of attorney to avoid an existing DFPS investigation.

DFPS began monitoring Junior in June 2024 after a serious medical event required him to be transported to a hospital. Mother initially tested negative for drugs and provided a stable home. In November 2024, however, DFPS received allegations of medical neglect and neglectful supervision after Mother took Junior home against medical advice before physicians completed requested examinations. The investigation also indicated that she had missed recommended follow-up appointments.

Mother initially missed drug-testing dates and later tested positive for cocaine in December 2024. That was her third positive cocaine test within approximately one year, including a positive result while she was pregnant with Junior. Mother denied knowingly using cocaine and attributed the result to sexual contact with Father or environmental exposure. DFPS obtained temporary managing conservatorship in January 2025, and Junior entered foster care.

By the December 2025 bench trial, Mother had achieved some favorable results. She participated in generally weekly supervised visits, behaved appropriately during those visits, and had a relationship with Junior. She maintained a child-appropriate apartment with Section 8 assistance, completed a psychological evaluation and substance-abuse course, attended counseling, and planned to begin a culinary certificate program.

Material concerns nevertheless remained. Mother tested positive for cocaine during the same month that she completed drug counseling, and she had submitted a diluted urine sample that DFPS treated as positive. Her psychological evaluation recommended therapy, substance-abuse treatment, psychiatric evaluation, and vocational counseling. Although she attended therapy and reportedly made progress, she was not taking prescribed psychotropic medication at the time of trial. She attributed the noncompliance to insurance problems. She was also unemployed, had not begun vocational counseling, and had not consistently communicated her claimed delivery work to her caseworker.

The evidence concerning Mother’s older children gave the trial court a broader view of her parenting history. Prior proceedings involved unstable housing, a suicide attempt while pregnant, no-contact orders, emotional disruption during visits, and an incident in which Mother directed a seven-year-old child to retrieve a firearm from a vehicle. During therapeutic visits with two younger children, Mother reportedly focused on one child’s electronic device while the other wandered through the building, struck people and equipment, and required DFPS employees to intervene.

The record also included evidence of domestic violence involving Father. Mother reported that Father had been violent toward her, yet her explanation for a later positive cocaine test suggested continuing contact with him. Father did not complete services, had minimal contact with Junior, failed to appear for trial, and did not appeal the termination of his rights.

Junior, meanwhile, was doing well in a foster placement whose caregiver wished to adopt him. A child advocate testified that Junior was bonded with the foster parent and daycare staff and was thriving.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in Junior’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).

• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported that same best-interest finding.

Mother did not challenge the predicate endangerment finding on appeal. Father did not appeal.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 161.001(b) permits involuntary termination only upon clear and convincing evidence that:

1. The parent committed at least one predicate act or omission identified in § 161.001(b)(1); and
2. Termination is in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).

Because termination implicates a parent’s constitutionally protected relationship with the child, ordinary civil sufficiency review does not apply without modification. Under In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002), and In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022), the reviewing court asks whether the evidence permitted the factfinder reasonably to form a firm belief or conviction that the disputed finding was true.

Legal-sufficiency review requires the appellate court to consider evidence favorable to the finding and to disregard contrary evidence that a reasonable factfinder could disbelieve. Factual-sufficiency review considers the entire record and asks whether disputed evidence contrary to the finding is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed the required firm belief or conviction. Under both standards, the trial court remains the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight assigned to the evidence.

The best-interest analysis is guided by the nonexclusive factors identified in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976), including:

• The child’s desires;
• The child’s present and future emotional and physical needs;
• Present and future emotional or physical danger to the child;
• The parenting abilities of the persons seeking custody;
• Programs available to assist those persons;
• The plans for the child;
• The stability of the proposed placement;
• The parent’s acts or omissions indicating that the existing parent-child relationship is improper; and
• Any excuse for those acts or omissions.

Proof supporting a predicate ground may also bear on best interest. The Department need not produce evidence concerning every Holley factor, and no single factor is necessarily controlling.

Application

The court evaluated Mother’s favorable evidence within the context of the entire record. Her stable apartment, regular counseling, appropriate supervised visits, affectionate interactions with Junior, and partial completion of services supported her position. The trial court was not required, however, to treat participation in services as proof that the conditions leading to removal had been resolved.

Mother’s cocaine use carried substantial weight. She had multiple positive tests, including one during pregnancy and another in the month she completed drug counseling. Her diluted urine sample supplied additional evidence from which the trial court could question whether she had achieved sustained sobriety. The court could also assess the credibility of her explanations that cocaine entered her system through Father or environmental exposure.

The mental-health evidence presented a similar distinction between participation and resolution. Mother completed an evaluation and attended therapy, but significant historical diagnoses remained part of the record, and she was not taking prescribed psychotropic medication at trial. Although she offered an insurance-related explanation, the trial court could determine that unresolved treatment and medication issues created a future risk to a very young child.

Mother’s history with her six older children was particularly relevant to whether the existing problems were isolated or recurring. None of those children remained in her care. The evidence included prior housing instability, a suicide attempt, no-contact orders, emotionally destabilizing visits, deficient supervision, and the firearm incident. The trial court could view those events as predictive of Mother’s ability to meet Junior’s long-term needs, especially when current services had not yet produced sustained and independently verified change.

The contrast between the competing placements further supported the finding. Junior was bonded with his foster caregiver, was thriving, and had an available adoptive placement. Mother had appropriate housing and positive supervised contact, but her unemployment, incomplete services, continued drug-test concerns, medication noncompliance, and inconsistent supervision evidence allowed the trial court to find that her proposed placement offered materially less stability.

The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and its resolution of conflicting evidence. Mother’s evidence of recent progress did not render the contrary evidence legally insufficient, nor was it so significant that the best-interest finding became factually insufficient.

Holding

The First Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Considering the repeated cocaine-positive tests, incomplete resolution of mental-health concerns, history with the older children, supervision problems, domestic-violence concerns, and the stability of Junior’s foster-to-adopt placement, the trial court could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in Junior’s best interest.

The court also held that the evidence was factually sufficient. Mother’s appropriate visits, stable apartment, counseling attendance, partial service-plan compliance, and other evidence of progress did not outweigh the broader record to such a degree that the trial court’s finding became unreasonable. The decree terminating Mother’s parental rights was affirmed.

Practical Application

Build a timeline, not merely an incident list. The persuasive force of the Department’s case came from showing recurrence across years and across multiple children. In custody and termination litigation, a chronology connecting substance use, treatment, relapses, missed appointments, unstable relationships, and prior orders is usually more effective than presenting each fact separately.

Distinguish service attendance from behavioral change. A certificate establishes completion of a course; it does not necessarily establish sobriety, improved judgment, or safe parenting. Counsel relying on service-plan compliance should connect each service to objective outcomes, such as consistent negative testing, medication adherence, improved clinical assessments, successful unsupervised contact, and reliable supervision.

Develop evidence concerning the excuses. Transportation, insurance coverage, provider availability, environmental exposure, and employment difficulties may be legitimate explanations. They should be corroborated through records and third-party testimony. Unsupported explanations leave the factfinder free to reject them as credibility problems.

Treat prior child-welfare history as substantive trial evidence. Prior cases can illuminate parenting ability, future risk, and whether current problems are entrenched. Counsel should obtain the underlying orders, service records, placement histories, visitation notes, and relevant witness testimony rather than relying on generalized references to prior DFPS involvement.

Do not neglect comparative-placement evidence. Best interest is not decided solely by identifying parental deficiencies. Evidence that the child is bonded, stable, developmentally progressing, and living in a permanent adoptive placement can materially strengthen the best-interest case. A parent opposing termination should present an equally concrete plan addressing housing, income, childcare, medical care, sobriety, treatment, transportation, and protection from unsafe partners.

Preserve the correct appellate challenge. Mother challenged only best interest. In a termination appeal, counsel should separately analyze and brief every predicate finding necessary to the judgment, the best-interest finding, preservation issues, and any due-process or appointment-of-counsel concerns. An unchallenged predicate finding narrows the appellate dispute and may supply evidence relevant to best interest.

Checklists

Proving a Best-Interest Case

• Create a dated chronology of removal events, drug tests, treatment, visits, placements, and court orders.
• Connect each material fact to one or more Holley factors.
• Introduce complete drug-testing records, including missed tests and diluted samples.
• Establish the timing of positive tests relative to pregnancy, treatment, visitation, and trial.
• Obtain mental-health evaluations, treatment recommendations, attendance records, and medication-compliance evidence.
• Identify unresolved risks rather than relying solely on historical diagnoses.
• Document the parent’s performance during supervised and therapeutic visits.
• Use specific examples of supervision failures, emotional disruption, or unsafe judgment.
• Develop admissible evidence concerning prior child-welfare proceedings.
• Present the child’s current condition, attachments, developmental progress, and need for permanence.
• Prove the proposed caregiver’s plans and ability to provide a stable placement.
• Address favorable evidence concerning the parent directly rather than minimizing it.

Defending Against Termination

• Begin substance-abuse and mental-health treatment promptly.
• Maintain a verifiable record of continuous negative drug tests.
• Avoid missed tests and understand that diluted samples may be treated as positive.
• Secure expert or medical support for any disputed positive result.
• Follow medication recommendations or document a clinician-approved alternative.
• Preserve proof of insurance problems, transportation barriers, and efforts to obtain replacement providers.
• Demonstrate insight into the reasons for removal rather than simply denying misconduct.
• Connect completed services to measurable behavioral improvement.
• Develop evidence of safe, attentive parenting during visits.
• Request progression toward longer, less restrictive, or unsupervised contact when supported by the record.
• Present a detailed plan for housing, income, childcare, medical care, and transportation.
• Establish and enforce boundaries with violent, drug-involved, or otherwise unsafe partners.
• Prepare to distinguish prior child-welfare cases with records showing changed circumstances.

Preparing the Appellate Record

• Obtain findings of fact and conclusions of law when procedurally available and strategically appropriate.
• Confirm that all exhibits are admitted and included in the clerk’s record.
• Ensure that drug-test reports, service plans, evaluations, and placement records are legible and complete.
• Preserve objections to hearsay, authentication, expert testimony, and improper character evidence.
• Identify the evidence supporting each predicate ground separately.
• Brief legal and factual sufficiency under the heightened clear-and-convincing standard.
• Address evidence both supporting and contradicting the challenged finding.
• Explain why contrary evidence is—or is not—so significant that the factfinder could not form a firm belief or conviction.
• Challenge every necessary ground supporting termination when the record permits.
• Account for the factfinder’s authority over credibility and evidentiary weight.

Applying the Case in Conservatorship Litigation

• Plead specific requested protections, including supervised possession, drug testing, treatment, and exchange conditions.
• Tie requested restrictions to current evidence of danger rather than diagnosis alone.
• Use historical conduct to establish a pattern and explain its predictive value.
• Present evidence concerning each parent’s actual supervision during possession.
• Compare the stability and practical details of each proposed parenting plan.
• Address domestic violence and continued contact with unsafe partners.
• Propose review mechanisms and objective conditions for expanding possession.
• Distinguish the clear-and-convincing termination standard from the standards governing ordinary conservatorship orders.

Citation

In re J.Z.L.-H., No. 01-26-00305-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 22, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~03ad8011-30ea-43ae-aac3-7fac6fd1b42c~~