In the Interest of I.J.L.G., I.J.W.G., N.M.G., and A.Z.G., 04-26-00398-CV, October 14, 2026.
On appeal from 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas
Synopsis
Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) when Mother continued using methamphetamine throughout the case, used while supervising the children, refused every requested drug test, and admitted using on the morning of trial. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that this pattern constituted a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct endangering the children’s physical or emotional well-being.
Relevance to Family Law
Although In re I.J.L.G. is a parental-termination case, its treatment of ongoing drug use is important in divorce, conservatorship, modification, and enforcement litigation. The opinion illustrates how courts evaluate substance abuse as a course of conduct rather than as a collection of isolated incidents. Drug use while exercising possession, refusal to test, instability, association with known drug users, noncompliance with treatment, and continued use during litigation may collectively support findings of endangerment, restrictions on possession, supervised visitation, or exclusion from joint managing conservatorship.
The evidentiary burden in an ordinary conservatorship dispute is not the clear-and-convincing standard required for termination. Nevertheless, the opinion provides a useful framework for developing and presenting evidence under Texas Family Code §§ 153.002, 153.004, 153.131, and 156.101. In a divorce involving property issues, the case does not authorize a punitive property division based on drug use; however, substance abuse may affect temporary orders, exclusive use of the residence, allocation of child-related expenses, credibility, reimbursement claims involving dissipated assets, and the structure of possession and access.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department’s involvement began in January 2025 after the children’s father reported that one of the children had been sexually abused. At the time, the four children were living with their father and paternal grandmother, and Mother’s whereabouts were unknown. The father later became uncooperative, and the Department temporarily lost contact with the family.
In March 2025, police were dispatched to Mother’s residence after she threatened another household member. The children had been left with Mother after Father’s arrest and the paternal grandmother’s departure. An officer described Mother as “spaced out” and under the influence. Mother admitted that she had used methamphetamine approximately twenty or thirty minutes before police arrived. The residence was occupied by several other people, some of whom were known drug users.
Mother signed a safety plan under which the children were placed with their paternal grandfather. The Department subsequently obtained temporary managing conservatorship, and the trial court made Mother’s service plan an order of the court.
The children were later removed from the grandfather’s home after suffering abuse and neglect there. By that point, Mother had not seen the children since March and had not maintained meaningful contact with the Department. When Mother reappeared in late 2025, she met with Department caseworkers while under the influence of methamphetamine. The trial court conditioned visitation on her successful completion of inpatient substance-abuse treatment.
Mother did not satisfy that condition. Her communications with the Department remained sporadic, she refused to meet consistently with caseworkers, and she failed to participate meaningfully in services. Although the Department renewed referrals and arranged a substance-abuse assessment and psychological evaluation, Mother never submitted to a drug test. She also experienced homelessness and did not provide proof of employment.
Shortly before trial, Mother contacted a residential treatment facility and requested an extension of the statutory dismissal deadline so that she could enter a forty-five-day program. By then, however, she had not completed the required services or taken a single drug test. At trial, Mother acknowledged that she began smoking methamphetamine before the children were born, had used methamphetamine while supervising them, and had most recently used earlier that same day.
The trial court denied the requested extension, proceeded with trial, and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother challenged the extension ruling, the predicate termination findings, the findings concerning the Department’s reunification efforts and continuing danger, and the best-interest finding.
Issues Decided
The Fourth Court of Appeals considered:
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s request to extend the automatic dismissal deadline under Texas Family Code § 263.401.
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported an endangerment finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
- Whether the termination judgment could be sustained in light of Mother’s challenges to the other predicate grounds found by the trial court.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the children but a continuing danger prevented their return.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Rules Applied
Texas Family Code § 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest. “Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence sufficient to produce in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction concerning the truth of the allegations. Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007.
Under § 161.001(b)(1)(E), termination may be based on proof that the parent engaged in conduct—or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct—that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. The subsection focuses on the parent’s conduct, including acts, omissions, and failures to act. Termination under subsection (E) must rest on a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct rather than an isolated act.
Endangerment does not require proof that the parent directed the conduct toward the child or that the child suffered an actual injury. It encompasses conduct that exposes a child to loss or injury or jeopardizes the child’s well-being. The court relied on the principles articulated in cases including Texas Department of Human Services v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987), In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012), In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. 2024), and In re C.E., 687 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2024).
For legal sufficiency, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding and asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. The appellate court defers to reasonable credibility determinations but may not disregard undisputed evidence contrary to the finding.
For factual sufficiency, the reviewing court considers the entire record, including disputed evidence contrary to the finding. Reversal is warranted only when the contrary evidence is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction.
The court also addressed § 263.401, which governs the dismissal deadline in Department conservatorship proceedings. A parent’s late request for additional time does not itself require an extension, particularly when the record reflects prolonged noncompliance rather than circumstances justifying delay.
The court noted that the Legislature amended § 161.001(b)(1) and repealed former subsection (O) in 2025. Because the amendments applied according to the suit’s procedural posture and effective-date provisions, the court applied the law governing the case while it was pending below.
Application
The Fourth Court treated Mother’s drug use as an ongoing course of conduct, not a single episode of poor judgment. Mother admitted using methamphetamine shortly before police arrived while the children were in her care. She also acknowledged that she had used while supervising the children. Those admissions directly connected the substance abuse to her parental responsibilities and permitted the trial court to find that her conduct exposed the children to instability and potential injury.
Mother’s conduct after removal reinforced the endangerment finding. She appeared for a Department meeting while under the influence, failed to maintain consistent contact with her caseworkers, did not meaningfully participate in services, and never submitted to drug testing. Her refusal to test was particularly significant when considered alongside her admitted use. The trial court was not required to treat the absence of test results as evidence of sobriety when Mother had prevented the Department from obtaining objective results.
Nor did Mother demonstrate that the danger had ended by the time of trial. Although she contacted a residential treatment facility shortly before trial, she had not entered or completed the program. More importantly, she admitted using methamphetamine on the day of trial. The proposed treatment therefore did not negate the evidence of continuing use, nor did it require the trial court to delay resolution of the children’s status.
The appellate court deferred to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and the weight of the evidence. Mother’s belated expression of willingness to seek treatment did not compel a finding in her favor when weighed against more than a year of noncompliance, instability, refusal to test, and continuing methamphetamine use.
Holding
The Fourth Court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). Mother’s use of methamphetamine while supervising the children, continued use during the Department case, refusal to submit to drug testing, and use on the day of trial constituted a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the children.
The court also upheld the denial of Mother’s request to extend the dismissal deadline. Her last-minute effort to enter treatment did not require an extension after prolonged nonparticipation in services and continued drug use through the day of trial.
Because subsection (E) supplied a sufficient predicate ground for termination, the remaining predicate-ground challenges did not provide a basis for reversal. The affirmed subsection (E) finding also satisfied the requirement that an appellate court review a challenged subsection (D) or (E) finding because those findings carry potential collateral consequences in future proceedings.
The court further concluded that the challenged findings concerning the Department’s efforts, continuing danger, and the children’s best interest did not warrant reversal. The Fourth Court therefore affirmed the termination order.
Practical Application
For practitioners representing the Department, a conservator, or a parent seeking restrictions, In re I.J.L.G. demonstrates the importance of proving chronology. A persuasive endangerment case should connect substance use to caregiving, document what occurred after intervention, and establish whether the parent’s conduct changed while litigation was pending. Admissions, police observations, missed tests, service records, treatment history, housing instability, and conduct immediately before trial should be presented as parts of one continuing course of conduct.
For a parent defending against termination or restrictive conservatorship orders, promises of future sobriety carry limited weight when unsupported by testing and treatment records. Counsel should secure testing immediately, address missed tests with admissible evidence, obtain treatment records, and present a concrete sobriety plan well before trial. Waiting until the statutory deadline approaches creates a substantial risk that the court will treat the proposed treatment as too little, too late.
In divorce and custody cases, counsel should distinguish between evidence of historical use and evidence of present parenting risk. The proponent of restrictions should establish frequency, recency, caregiving circumstances, access to drugs, impaired supervision, and failure to comply with safeguards. The responding parent should focus on objective evidence of recovery, including negative tests, treatment completion, sponsor or counselor testimony, stable housing, relapse-prevention planning, and compliance with temporary orders.
When property issues accompany a custody dispute, counsel should maintain analytical discipline. Substance abuse may be relevant to dissipation, fraud on the community, employment instability, or extraordinary child-related expenses, but it does not automatically justify a disproportionate property division. The property claim should be tied to identifiable financial evidence rather than presented as punishment for parental misconduct.
Checklists
Building an Endangerment Record
- Establish the dates, frequency, and method of drug use.
- Identify whether use occurred during possession or supervision of the children.
- Obtain admissions made to police, caseworkers, medical providers, or evaluators.
- Secure police body-camera footage, incident reports, and witness testimony.
- Document the presence of drugs, paraphernalia, or known drug users in the home.
- Create a timeline of requested, completed, missed, and refused drug tests.
- Authenticate service plans, referrals, attendance records, and discharge summaries.
- Connect housing, employment, or transportation instability to the children’s safety.
- Prove post-removal conduct to show whether the dangerous course of conduct continued.
- Develop evidence of recency, including conduct near hearings and trial.
Defending a Parent Accused of Drug-Related Endangerment
- Arrange immediate independent testing through a reliable facility.
- Preserve complete laboratory reports and chain-of-custody documentation.
- Explain missed or disputed tests with records rather than argument.
- Begin treatment promptly instead of waiting for a trial setting or dismissal deadline.
- Obtain testimony from treatment providers, counselors, sponsors, or monitoring personnel.
- Present evidence of stable housing, employment, and a sober support network.
- Demonstrate compliance with visitation conditions and temporary orders.
- Develop a relapse-prevention and child-safety plan.
- Address each alleged incident directly; do not rely solely on generalized claims of sobriety.
- Prepare the client to explain admissions and inconsistencies without minimizing the safety concerns.
Handling Requests to Extend the Dismissal Deadline
- Calendar the dismissal deadline and any permitted extension date at the beginning of the case.
- Identify the statutory basis for an extension before filing the motion.
- File the request sufficiently early to permit a meaningful hearing.
- Present evidence explaining why additional time is necessary.
- Show measurable progress already made under the service plan.
- Identify the specific services that remain and when they will be completed.
- Demonstrate that the requested extension serves the children’s need for safety and permanency.
- Anticipate the argument that last-minute treatment efforts are merely prospective.
- Preserve the ruling and supporting evidence for appellate review.
Applying the Case in Divorce and Conservatorship Litigation
- Plead the requested conservatorship or possession restrictions with specificity.
- Connect substance use to the best-interest factors and parental decision-making.
- Request tailored testing protocols, including frequency, substances tested, and consequences for missed tests.
- Define the conditions for supervised possession and the path to less restrictive access.
- Consider temporary injunctions addressing drug use in the children’s presence.
- Separate conservatorship evidence from property-division evidence.
- Trace any alleged dissipation of community assets to specific transactions.
- Avoid presenting termination-level authorities as though the burdens of proof were identical.
- Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when the record may require appellate review.
Preserving Sufficiency Complaints
- Obtain a complete reporter’s record and clerk’s record.
- Identify the evidence supporting and contradicting each challenged finding.
- Address both legal and factual sufficiency under the clear-and-convincing standard.
- Challenge the best-interest finding separately from the predicate grounds.
- Brief subsection (D) and subsection (E) findings because of their collateral consequences.
- Preserve complaints regarding evidentiary rulings that affect the sufficiency analysis.
- Avoid briefing only the parent’s favorable evidence; account for credibility determinations and contrary proof.
Citation
In re I.J.L.G., I.J.W.G., N.M.G., & A.Z.G., No. 04-26-00398-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~ce09fb97-d631-449e-802a-30908ad02c6a~~
Share this content: