Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with the family in 2020 and sought emergency removal of the children in 2021. After mediation, the Department abandoned its initial termination request, and a 2022 agreed order named the Department permanent managing conservator and Mother possessory conservator.
In the later proceeding, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to D.W., J.W., and I.W. It found that both parents had endangered the children under Texas Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), that Father also had violated subsection (F), and that termination was in the children’s best interest. Father challenged only the best-interest finding; Mother challenged the endangerment and best-interest findings and argued that the court improperly considered events predating the 2022 order.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected Mother’s argument that the 2022 order barred consideration of earlier evidence because the Department had abandoned its termination request pursuant to a mediated settlement; termination therefore had not been adjudicated or denied in that order.
The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the findings that Mother endangered the children through their environment and through her conduct or omissions. The record included parental drug use, domestic violence, reports of sexual abuse, criminal activity, Mother’s decision to leave the children with Father despite known dangers, her continued association with Father despite no-contact restrictions, repeated moves, and evidence that D.W. was left alone after being returned to Mother’s home.
The court also upheld the best-interest findings as to both parents. It relied on the history of methamphetamine use, domestic violence, sexual-abuse allegations, criminality, Father’s failure to complete drug-related services, the parents’ unsuitable and unstable housing, their failure to pay child support, and Mother’s acknowledged difficulties parenting some of the children.
Key Takeaways
- An agreed conservatorship order entered after the Department abandons a termination request is not necessarily an adjudication denying termination.
- A parent may endanger children by knowingly exposing them to a dangerous environment or by acts, omissions, and failures to act, even without proof that the children suffered an actual injury.
- Past drug use, domestic violence, sexual-abuse concerns, criminality, instability, and deficient parenting may support both statutory endangerment grounds and a best-interest finding.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that evidence predating an agreed conservatorship order may remain relevant in a later termination proceeding when the earlier termination request was abandoned rather than adjudicated. It also shows how a sustained pattern of dangerous conditions and parental choices can satisfy both endangerment grounds and the separate best-interest requirement.