Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed Mother’s two young children after police found one child alone and shivering outside a laundromat and the other strapped into a car seat in Mother’s apartment. Both children were filthy and had soiled diapers. The evidence also showed a lengthy history of Department referrals involving Mother, allegations of abuse and neglect concerning her older children, criminal charges, and recurring methamphetamine use.
Mother initially participated in services and obtained a monitored return of the children. She then repeatedly refused drug testing, left the children with family friend Juan Cruz Galvan, became unreachable, and later tested positive several times for methamphetamine and amphetamine. After a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and found termination was in the children’s best interest.
The trial court separately removed the children from Galvan’s care because of his age and named the Department permanent managing conservator. Although the court of appeals sharply criticized that decision as speculative and arguably an abuse of discretion, Mother did not challenge the conservatorship ruling and no other party appealed it, so the appellate court did not review that issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the endangerment findings. Mother’s past conduct involving her older children was relevant because prior misconduct and neglect may indicate future conduct. Her continuing drug use, repeated refusals to test, lack of cooperation, unstable circumstances, and decision to leave the young children unattended supported findings under both subsections (D) and (E).
The court rejected Mother’s contention that her missed tests could not support an inference of drug use. A factfinder could reasonably infer that she avoided testing because she was using drugs, particularly given her later positive results and her knowledge that failed tests threatened reunification. Drug use could constitute endangering conduct even when it did not occur in the children’s presence.
The evidence also supported the best-interest finding. Mother had not visited the children for months, continued using drugs while termination was pending, failed to provide a stable home, and left most of their daily care to Galvan even after reunification. Her promises to stop using drugs and never again leave the children unattended did not outweigh her established course of conduct.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s conduct involving other children, including conduct predating the births of the children at issue, may support an inference of future endangerment.
- Repeated failures or refusals to submit to required drug testing may permit the factfinder to infer that the parent was avoiding tests because of continued drug use.
- Continued drug use, neglect, instability, prolonged lack of visitation, and an unsuccessful monitored return may collectively support both statutory endangerment grounds and a best-interest finding.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the breadth of evidence Texas courts may consider in termination cases. Endangerment need not involve conduct directed at the children or actual injury; a sustained pattern of drug use, neglect, instability, and noncompliance may create the required danger to their physical or emotional well-being.
The decision also underscores the limits of appellate review. Even though the appellate court questioned the trial court’s age-based decision to remove the children from their longtime caregiver, it could not reverse that unchallenged portion of the judgment.