§ 161.001(b)(1)(D)–(E) Endangerment | In re A.L.O. (2026)

In the Interest of A.L.O., a Child, 13-26-00295-CV, September 28, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law of Aransas County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Prenatal methamphetamine exposure resulting in neonatal withdrawal and seizures, combined with unsafe housing and Mother’s continued residence with a drug-using, noncompliant partner, supported the endangerment findings notwithstanding Mother’s sobriety, employment, visitation, and substantial completion of services.

Relevance to Family Law

Although In re A.L.O. is a termination case, its strategic implications extend to custody litigation and divorce proceedings involving conservatorship. A parent’s recent improvement does not necessarily neutralize evidence of an earlier endangering course of conduct, particularly when the parent has not remedied the environment or relationships that created the danger. In custody cases, similar evidence may bear on conservatorship, possession restrictions, geographic or household conditions, injunctions against exposing a child to particular individuals, and the need for drug testing or supervised access.

The opinion also reinforces an important distinction in cases involving economic hardship: poverty alone is not endangerment, and a court may not prefer one household simply because it has greater financial resources. But counsel cannot reduce objectively hazardous housing, instability, lack of utilities, substance abuse within the household, or continued association with an unsafe partner to mere financial disadvantage. In divorce and property litigation, the division of assets and temporary allocation of the marital residence may affect a parent’s ability to establish safe housing, but the controlling conservatorship question remains whether the child’s actual environment is safe and stable—not which parent owns more property.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved when Amy was born testing positive for methamphetamine. She experienced withdrawal, seizures, difficulty feeding, and an extended need for medical care in the neonatal intensive care unit. After discharge, she continued taking phenobarbital for withdrawal and seizures until May 2025. By trial, Amy was meeting developmental milestones, receiving occupational therapy and additional medical monitoring, and doing well in a foster-to-adopt placement.

Mother and the alleged father, E.O., were in a romantic relationship and were living together when the case began. Although Mother moved several times during the case, she returned shortly before trial to the same Rockport property associated with E.O. The Department’s caseworker described that residence as uninhabitable: it had unfinished walls, exposed insulation, unfinished flooring, no running water, no functional plumbing or toilet, intermittent or absent electricity, and trash and miscellaneous items throughout. Photographs of the residence were admitted without objection.

The Department provided Mother with a housing application, but she did not secure an appropriate residence. The caseworker also questioned the stability of the property because of delinquent taxes and uncertainty about how long its occupants could remain there.

Mother made substantial progress in other areas. She completed parenting education, substance-abuse services, individual counseling, and a psychosocial evaluation. She obtained employment, consistently visited Amy, and appeared to have addressed her own substance use; according to the caseworker, Mother’s last positive drug test was in August. The visitation supervisor described the visits as going well and testified that Mother appropriately secured Amy in the car seat.

Mother nevertheless continued living with E.O. Evidence showed that Mother and E.O. had used methamphetamine together. E.O. reportedly admitted daily drug use, did not submit to testing, refused court-ordered services, did not establish paternity, and reacted aggressively and profanely toward the caseworker. On one attempted home visit, E.O. refused to allow the caseworker inside while Mother merely shrugged. Mother had been advised that remaining with E.O. could present a danger to Amy, yet the relationship and living arrangement continued.

The Department’s concern therefore was not limited to Mother’s financial circumstances. It focused on the combination of the child’s serious prenatal methamphetamine exposure, the hazardous residence, the instability of Mother’s housing, and Mother’s decision to continue living with a person who used drugs and refused all remedial services.

Issues Decided

The court decided:

Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), based on knowingly placing or allowing the child to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.
Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(E), based on endangering conduct or knowingly placing the child with persons who engaged in endangering conduct.
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence established that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Amy’s best interest.

Rules Applied

Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). Clear and convincing evidence is the degree of proof that produces in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the allegations.

Subsection (D) focuses primarily on the child’s environment. The relevant inquiry is whether the child’s conditions or surroundings endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being and whether the parent knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in those conditions. The environment includes not only the physical condition of the residence but also the conduct of people within the household.

Subsection (E) focuses on the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, and a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangers the child. “Endanger” does not require proof that the child suffered an actual injury or that the parent intended harm. Drug use may support an endangerment finding because it exposes a child to instability and the possibility that the parent will be impaired, incarcerated, or otherwise unavailable. Prenatal drug use may also constitute endangering conduct when it exposes the child to drugs before birth and produces serious medical consequences.

In reviewing legal sufficiency under the clear-and-convincing standard, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determines whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction. Factual-sufficiency review considers the entire record, including disputed evidence, and asks whether contrary evidence is so significant that a reasonable factfinder could not have formed the required firm belief or conviction.

Evidence supporting a predicate ground may also be relevant to best interest. The analysis may include the child’s needs, present and future danger, the parties’ parenting abilities, available programs, plans for the child, stability of the proposed placement, and any excuses for the parent’s conduct. No single factor is necessarily controlling.

Application

The court treated Mother’s prenatal methamphetamine use as more than an abstract risk. Amy was born testing positive for methamphetamine and suffered withdrawal, seizures, and feeding problems serious enough to require NICU care and medication after discharge. Those consequences allowed the trial court to connect Mother’s substance use directly to danger to the child’s physical well-being.

Mother’s later sobriety and service-plan compliance were favorable evidence, but they did not compel rejection of the endangerment grounds. The trial court could evaluate whether Mother had internalized and implemented what she learned through services. Despite completing programs addressing parenting, substance abuse, relapse prevention, healthy boundaries, and safe relationships, she returned to an objectively unsafe residence and remained with E.O.

The home’s condition provided concrete evidence of environmental danger. Exposed insulation, unfinished walls and floors, lack of water and plumbing, absence of a working toilet, electrical concerns, and accumulated debris created hazards independent of the occupants’ relative income. The appellate court therefore did not treat the case as one in which the Department sought termination merely because Mother was economically disadvantaged.

Mother’s continued relationship with E.O. reinforced both the environmental and conduct-based findings. The evidence permitted the trial court to find that E.O. used methamphetamine, refused drug testing and services, behaved aggressively toward the caseworker, and obstructed the Department’s access to the residence. Mother knew of the Department’s concerns but continued to live with him and did not intervene when he prevented the caseworker from entering the home.

The court also considered Mother’s positive evidence, including her completion of most services, recent employment, apparent sobriety, regular visitation, and appropriate conduct during visits. But the factfinder was entitled to weigh those improvements against the severity of the prenatal exposure and Mother’s failure to resolve the central safety concerns. Completion of services did not establish that Mother could provide a safe placement when the dangerous residence and unsafe relationship remained unchanged.

For best interest, the trial court could consider Amy’s vulnerability, her medical history, Mother’s unresolved housing and relationship choices, and the stability of the foster-to-adopt placement. Amy was doing well, was attached to the placement, and could obtain permanency in the only home she had known.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the subsection (D) finding. The combination of prenatal drug exposure and an unsafe household—including the physical condition of the residence and the presence of a drug-using, noncompliant partner—permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that Mother knowingly placed or allowed Amy to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.

The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the subsection (E) finding. Mother’s methamphetamine use during pregnancy, the resulting neonatal complications, and her continued choice to reside with E.O. despite his drug use, refusal of services, and obstructive conduct constituted evidence of an endangering course of conduct.

Finally, the court upheld the best-interest finding. Mother’s recent sobriety, employment, visitation, and substantial service-plan compliance did not outweigh the evidence concerning Amy’s medical vulnerability, Mother’s unresolved housing and relationship risks, and the stability and permanency available through the foster-to-adopt placement. The termination order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For Department counsel and amicus attorneys, In re A.L.O. illustrates the importance of proving specific danger rather than relying on generalized assertions of instability. Photographs, utility status, descriptions of physical hazards, admissions of drug use, refusal of testing, obstructed home visits, and medical evidence connecting prenatal exposure to neonatal consequences create a record capable of satisfying heightened appellate review.

For parents’ counsel, service completion should be presented as behavioral change, not as a checklist. Evidence of clean testing and course completion will have limited force if the client returns to the same residence, continues living with the same drug-using partner, or cannot explain how the child will be protected. Counsel should secure corroborating proof of housing applications, waiting-list status, income, alternative placements, lease negotiations, utility restoration, and enforceable plans excluding unsafe individuals from the household.

In custody disputes, litigators should distinguish between a parent’s own rehabilitation and the safety of the parent’s household. A parent may be personally sober yet expose the child to danger by residing with a partner who uses drugs or by permitting that person to exercise access. Requested temporary orders should address household members, drug testing, home access, supervised possession, and conditions for expanded possession.

In divorce cases, counsel should identify early whether temporary financial orders or temporary use of property could eliminate a safety concern. If adequate resources exist to establish separate housing, a parent’s refusal to separate from a drug-using partner may become particularly probative. Conversely, where financial constraints are genuine, counsel should document concrete efforts to obtain safe housing so that poverty is not incorrectly equated with parental unfitness.

Checklists

Building a Subsection (D) Record

Identify each physical hazard in the child’s proposed residence.
Photograph or record the condition of the home when legally authorized.
Establish whether the residence has water, electricity, plumbing, sanitation, and safe sleeping arrangements.
Prove when the parent learned of each hazard.
Document the Department’s or opposing party’s efforts to assist with remediation.
Identify all persons residing at or regularly visiting the property.
Connect household members’ conduct to the child’s physical or emotional safety.
Distinguish objective danger from poverty or comparative financial disadvantage.

Building a Subsection (E) Record

Obtain complete prenatal, delivery, NICU, and pediatric records.
Establish the substance involved, timing of exposure, and resulting medical effects.
Compile the parent’s drug-testing history, including missed, refused, diluted, and positive tests.
Develop evidence of admissions concerning drug use by the parent or household members.
Show whether the conduct was isolated or part of a continuing pattern.
Document refusals of services, testing, paternity determinations, or home access.
Connect post-removal decisions to continuing safety concerns.
Address the parent’s knowledge of a partner’s substance use or dangerous conduct.

Presenting Rehabilitation Evidence

Obtain certified or authenticated records of every completed service.
Present a complete timeline of negative drug tests.
Use treatment providers to explain progress, prognosis, and relapse-prevention planning.
Show how the parent has implemented—not merely attended—services.
Provide proof of stable employment and income.
Present a lease, utility records, inspection evidence, and photographs of the proposed home.
Identify safe childcare, transportation, and medical-care arrangements.
Demonstrate enforceable boundaries with unsafe partners or household members.
Explain any missed opportunities, delayed applications, or periods of instability.

Addressing an Unsafe Partner

Determine whether the partner resides in or has access to the home.
Obtain available drug tests, criminal history, service records, and relevant admissions.
Seek orders governing contact between the partner and the child.
Establish whether the parent can and will enforce those restrictions.
Document any interference with caseworkers, evaluators, discovery, or home inspections.
Consider whether separate housing is realistic and adequately documented.
Prepare the parent to explain why the relationship does not expose the child to continuing danger.
Avoid relying on an informal promise that the partner will not be present.

Preserving Sufficiency Issues for Appeal

Tie each exhibit and witness to the elements of subsection (D), subsection (E), or best interest.
Develop both favorable and unfavorable evidence rather than leaving gaps in the record.
Object to conclusory opinions that lack an evidentiary foundation.
Preserve objections to photographs, medical records, drug tests, and hearsay statements.
Request sufficiently specific findings when procedurally available and strategically appropriate.
Address contrary evidence under the clear-and-convincing standard.
Separate arguments concerning poverty from evidence of actual environmental danger.
Brief predicate grounds (D) and (E) independently because of their collateral consequences.

Citation

In re A.L.O., No. 13-26-00295-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 28, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

~~cff0465c-47eb-429d-832d-238341e44915~~

Share this content: