endangerment analysis in Texas

2021In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

2020In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

2025See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 222 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied).

2024See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 222 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied).

2024See In re V.A., 598 S.W.3d at 328; In re J.E.M.M., 532 S.W.3d at 880–81; In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

2024See In re V.A., 598 S.W.3d 317 , 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied); In re J.E.M.M., 532 S.W.3d at 880–81; In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105, 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). 1.

2024See In re J.E.M.M, 532 S.W.3d 874 , 880–81 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2020An endangerment analysis under subsection D “focuses on evidence related to the child’s environment.” In re J.E.M.M, 532 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2004See In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 634 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied).

2004See In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 634 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied).

2026CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D). 10 The endangerment analysis under subsection (D) focuses on the evidence of the child’s physical environment but allows termination if DFPS proves the parent’s conduct caused a child to be placed or remain in an “endangering environment.” Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 721 .

2026The endangerment analysis under subsection (D) focuses on the evidence of the child’s physical environment but allows termination if DFPS proves the parent’s conduct caused a child to be placed or remain in an “endangering environment.” Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 721 .

2025Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 534 (Tex. 1987)). 17 of a less-than-ideal family environment,’ it does not require that there be conduct ‘directed at the child’ or that ‘the child actually suffer[] injury.’” In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d at 748 (alteration in original) (quoting Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533 ).20 There are any number of considerations in the endangerment analysis.

2025Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 534 (Tex. 1987)). 17 of a less-than-ideal family environment,’ it does not require that there be conduct ‘directed at the child’ or that ‘the child actually suffer[] injury.’” In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d at 748 (alteration in original) (quoting Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533 ).20 There are any number of considerations in the endangerment analysis.

2022See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).

2021See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re R.A.G., 545 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.). 20 The evidence showed that Mother has been suffering from drug abuse issues throughout S.V.’s entire life, over twelve years.

2022See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).

2021See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re R.A.G., 545 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.). 20 The evidence showed that Mother has been suffering from drug abuse issues throughout S.V.’s entire life, over twelve years.

2026“While imprisonment alone is not a basis to terminate a parent’s rights, it is an appropriate factor to consider because when a parent is incarcerated, he or she is absent from the child’s daily life and unable to provide support to the child,” negatively affecting “the child’s living environment and emotional well-being.” In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); see In re N.L.S., 715 S.W.3d 760 , 765 (Tex. 2025) (stating that “mere imprisonment will not, standing alone, constitute engaging in conduct [that] endangers the . . . child,” but that a parent’s crimi

2025In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).

2021See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re R.A.G., 545 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.). 11 C.

2021See In re M.D.M., 579 S.W.3d 744, 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re L.M., 572 S.W.3d 823, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re R.A.G., 545 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.). 20 The evidence showed that Mother has been suffering from drug abuse issues throughout S.V.’s entire life, over twelve years.

2026See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (want of self-control and propensity for violence may be considered evidence of endangerment).

2022See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

2020See id. 24 The court’s endangerment analysis also includes consideration of a parent’s criminal record and how repeated criminal activity adds instability to the child’s life with repeated parental incarceration and separation.

2019See id. 28 The court’s endangerment analysis also includes consideration of a parent’s criminal record and how repeated criminal activity adds instability to the child’s life with repeated parental incarceration and separation.

2018In re P.H., 544 S.W.3d 850, 858 (Tex. App.—El Paso 9 2017, no pet.).

2018In re P.H., 544 S.W.3d 850, 858 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2017, no pet.).

2015Boyd, 67 S.W.3d at 403 ; see also In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 471 (Tex. 2013)(Green, J., dissenting).17 Instead courts have granted discretion to trial courts through a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the public policy of the State is furthered; chief among those policy interests is protecting the safety and wellbeing of children subject to custody disputes .

2013Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Green, myself, and Justice Devine believe that section 153.0071 does not preclude an endangerment inquiry. 411 S.W.3d 445 , 466 & n. 1 (Green, J., dissenting); infra Part II.

2015Riggan v. State, No. 07-09-00227-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5497 , at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 19, 2011, pet. refd) (mem. op., not designated for publication), citing Segura v. State, 826 S.W.2d 178, 184 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. refd) (applying former version of public intoxication statute).

2014Riggan v. State, No. 07-09-00227-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5497 , at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 19, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication), citing Segura v. State, 826 S.W.2d 178, 184 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd) (applying former version of public intoxication statute).

2025Thus, subsection D allows termination if the parent’s use of alcohol or substances causes a child to be placed or remain in an -2- 04-25-00439-CV “endangering environment.” In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied); see also In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied); Lumpkin v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 260 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet).

2025Thus, subsection D allows termination if the parent’s use of alcohol or substances causes a child to be placed or remain in an -2- 04-25-00439-CV “endangering environment.” In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied); see also In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied); Lumpkin v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 260 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet).

2025Thus, subsection D allows termination if the parent’s use of alcohol or substances causes a child to be placed or remain in an -2- 04-25-00439-CV “endangering environment.” In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied); see also In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied); Lumpkin v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 260 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet).

2025See, e.g., In re H.M.Q., No. 01-24-00817-CV, 2025 WL 1033755 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 8, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (“It is settled Texas law that a mother’s use of illegal drugs during pregnancy endangers the physical wellbeing of her unborn child.”); In re Z.Q.N., No. 14-17-00434-CV, 2019 WL 758377 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“A mother’s failure to seek prenatal care is relevant to the endangerment analysis.”); Walker, 312 S.W.3d at 617 (“Because it exposes the child to the possibility that the parent may be impaired or

2024See J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d at 315–17 (a parent’s criminal conduct that may result in incarceration is relevant to the endangerment analysis); In re E.J., No. 14-23-00387-CV, 2023 WL 8043686 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 21, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (inappropriate, abusive, or unlawful conduct by a parent can create an environment that endangers the physical and emotional well-being of children under subsection (D)); In re M.J., No. 02-23-00026-CV, 2023 WL 3643673 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 25, 2023 , no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Father’s lack of desire to stop using mari[h]uana c

2024Cf. In re R.F., 115 S.W.3d 804, 811 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (concluding a 14 court may consider a parent’s noncompliance with a service plan as part of the endangerment analysis).

2023See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 221 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied); see also In re J.J.M., No. 13-22-00131-CV, 2022 WL 3257520 , at *6 (Tex. App.— 5“Allowing [§] 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) findings to go unreviewed on appeal when the parent has presented the issue to the court thus violates the parent’s due process and due course of law rights.” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). 12 Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2021See In re S.R., 452 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. App.—Houston (14th Dist. 2014, pet. denied) (stating courts consider the –20– “child’s environment before the Department obtained custody of the child” under subsection (D) but “may consider conduct both before and after the Department removed the child from the home” under subsection (E)) (citations omitted).8 Despite the generality of our statement in J.K.F., our own review in that case was consistent with the approach described by our sister court in S.R.—that is, while we did not explain that we could consider evidence after a child’s removal for s

2019See C.H. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 389 S.W.3d 534 , 540–41 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.).