In the Interest of C.M., M.M., F.M., and G.M., Children

In the Interest of C.M., M.M., F.M., and G.M., Children, 14-26-00513-CV, November 10, 2026.

On appeal from 315th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

A parent’s continued use of methamphetamine and marijuana, repeated positive and missed drug tests, relapse after inpatient treatment, and failure to complete recommended substance-abuse services can establish an endangering course of conduct under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held the evidence legally and factually sufficient and affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights.

Relevance to Family Law

Although In re C.M. is a termination case, its evidentiary lessons extend to contested conservatorship and possession disputes arising in divorce and other suits affecting the parent-child relationship. A trial court need not wait for proof that a child suffered a drug-related physical injury; a parent’s pattern of illegal-drug use, missed testing, failed treatment, impaired judgment, criminal exposure, and inability to demonstrate sustained sobriety may materially affect conservatorship, geographic restrictions, supervised possession, conditions on access, and best-interest findings.

The same evidence may also affect property issues in a divorce when substance abuse is tied to dissipation of community assets, criminal expenses, unexplained withdrawals, employment instability, or reimbursement claims. The termination standard remains distinct and significantly more demanding, however, so counsel should not treat an endangerment finding under § 161.001(b)(1)(E) as interchangeable with a conservatorship decision or proof of marital waste.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Father was the parent of three of the four children involved in the Department’s case. The case began after the youngest child was born in 2024 and both Mother and the newborn tested positive for amphetamines. When initially contacted, Father denied that he and Mother used drugs.

The family was placed under a safety plan requiring supervision of the children, parenting classes, a psychological evaluation, a substance-abuse assessment, and random drug testing. The record reflected repeated safety-plan violations, including failures to maintain required supervision and failures to appear for drug tests. Father initially produced some negative tests, but at a December 2024 hearing he and Mother refused testing and admitted that they expected to test positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Father tested the next day and was positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

After removal, Father entered a 30-day inpatient substance-abuse program. His post-treatment testing did not demonstrate sustained sobriety. In February 2025, he tested positive for a barbiturate, amphetamines, methamphetamine, and marijuana. After one negative test in March, he again tested positive for marijuana, amphetamines, and methamphetamine in May. He had another positive test later that month, failed to appear for further testing until October, and then again tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. A January 2026 test remained positive for marijuana.

The evidence also showed that Father had been arrested for methamphetamine possession while Mother was pregnant with his first child. He later pleaded guilty and served six months in county jail. Mother testified that she and Father would leave the children with the maternal grandparents, use drugs, and return hours later. Father maintained that he used drugs away from the children and was never under the influence in their presence, but he acknowledged continuing illegal-drug use while the Department’s case was pending.

Father’s visitation was suspended because he refused to submit to drug testing. By trial, he had not attended recommended therapy or outpatient substance-abuse treatment and had only recently applied for parenting classes. He did not seek immediate return of the children; instead, he asked that his rights be preserved and that the children be placed with relatives. His proposed placement with his mother was complicated by the fact that he lived in her home and lacked a concrete alternative housing plan.

There was no evidence that Father physically abused the children, and pre-removal caseworkers generally described the children as clean and in good health. After removal, however, the children gained weight, addressed developmental and behavioral concerns, and were reported to be safe and thriving in their foster placement. The foster parents wished to adopt them.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that Father engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered their physical or emotional well-being under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
• Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the same statutory endangerment finding.
• Whether Father’s continued illegal-drug use, positive and missed tests, relapse after inpatient treatment, and failure to complete recommended services constituted an endangering course of conduct even without proof that he used drugs in the children’s physical presence or directly injured them.
• Whether the termination judgment and the Department’s appointment as managing conservator should be affirmed.

Rules Applied

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

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) permits termination when a parent has “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” The inquiry focuses on the parent’s conduct, including acts and omissions, and ordinarily examines whether the evidence demonstrates a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct.

Endangerment does not require proof that the parent directed misconduct at the child or that the child suffered an actual injury. Illegal-drug use may support an endangerment finding because it can expose a child to instability, impaired caregiving, criminal activity, incarceration, and the loss of the parent’s presence. Continued drug use after the Department’s intervention, during a termination case, or after treatment is particularly probative because it demonstrates the persistence of the conduct despite known consequences.

A missed drug test is not viewed in isolation. In conjunction with admitted use, repeated positive results, refusal to test, and incomplete treatment, missed testing may support the factfinder’s assessment of whether the parent has achieved sobriety and whether the conduct is likely to continue.

Under In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005), proof of a predicate ground alone does not authorize termination; the Department must also prove that termination is in the child’s best interest. On legal-sufficiency review, the appellate court considers whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction in favor of the challenged finding. On factual-sufficiency review, the court considers the entire record, including disputed evidence, to determine whether contrary evidence is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed that firm belief or conviction.

Application

The appellate court evaluated Father’s drug use as a continuing pattern rather than as a collection of isolated incidents. The pattern began no later than the period surrounding his first child’s birth, when he was arrested for possessing methamphetamine while Mother was pregnant. It continued through the youngest child’s birth, the family-based services case, the Department’s removal case, inpatient treatment, and the termination trial.

Father’s December 2024 positive test was especially significant because it followed missed tests and his admission that he expected to test positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Although he then completed inpatient treatment, his first post-discharge test was positive for multiple substances. The subsequent negative test did not compel a finding of sobriety because later tests again showed methamphetamine and marijuana use, and Father then stopped appearing for testing for several months.

The court also could consider Father’s conduct after he knew his parental rights were at risk. He continued using illegal drugs while the case was pending, failed to participate in recommended outpatient treatment and therapy, delayed parenting classes, and lost visitation because of his refusal to test. Those circumstances supported an inference that the drug use was persistent and that Father had not made the behavioral changes necessary to eliminate the danger.

Father’s assertion that he used drugs away from the children did not defeat the endangerment finding. Mother testified that the parents left the children with relatives, used drugs, and returned hours later. More fundamentally, subsection (E) did not require proof that Father consumed drugs in front of the children or physically injured them. His continued use exposed the family to impaired judgment, criminal consequences, instability, and the risk that he would be unavailable as a caregiver.

The trial court also was entitled to weigh Father’s lack of a stable reunification or placement plan. He was not asking for the children’s immediate return, lacked income, lived in the home he proposed as a relative placement, and did not identify a concrete alternative residence until trial. Against that evidence, the children were reported to be safe, healthy, gaining weight, and thriving in a placement whose caregivers wished to adopt them.

Holding

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). Father’s methamphetamine and marijuana use, criminal drug history, positive and missed drug tests, relapse after inpatient treatment, and continued use during the Department’s case permitted a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that he had engaged in an endangering course of conduct.

The court further held that the evidence was factually sufficient. Father’s negative tests, his claim that he used drugs only away from the children, and the absence of evidence of direct physical abuse did not make the contrary evidence so significant that the trial court could not reasonably find endangerment by clear and convincing evidence.

The court affirmed the judgment terminating Father’s parental rights and appointing the Department as the children’s managing conservator.

Practical Application

For Department litigation, In re C.M. reinforces that the strongest subsection (E) case usually is chronological. Counsel should build a timeline beginning before removal and continuing through trial, identifying arrests, admissions, positive tests, missed tests, treatment episodes, relapses, visitation suspensions, and incomplete services. The persuasiveness of the case lies in the pattern and the parent’s response after receiving notice that continued drug use threatens the parent-child relationship.

For a parent defending against termination, treatment completion is not the endpoint. A certificate from an inpatient program has limited value if the parent immediately tests positive, declines follow-up treatment, or stops appearing for random testing. The defense should present objective proof of sustained sobriety, consistent testing, relapse-prevention work, medical treatment, stable housing, and a realistic caregiving plan.

In divorce and modification cases, counsel can use the same evidentiary architecture when seeking temporary orders, supervised possession, testing conditions, or restrictions on access. The requested relief should remain proportional to the governing best-interest standard. A history of drug use may justify safeguards, but termination authorities should not be cited as though every positive test automatically warrants the most restrictive custody order.

Where a parent claims marijuana use is medically necessary, counsel should develop the medical record rather than rely on the parent’s testimony alone. Relevant proof includes diagnosis, prescribing or treating-provider records, lawful authorization, dosage, frequency, impairment, interactions with other medications, and whether legal treatment alternatives exist. An unsupported assertion of self-medication will carry little weight when testing also reveals methamphetamine or other illegal substances.

In property litigation, obtain financial records showing whether substance abuse resulted in unexplained cash withdrawals, depletion of accounts, criminal-defense expenses, treatment expenses, employment losses, or other alleged waste. Keep the property theory analytically separate from the custody theory: proof of an endangering course of conduct does not itself establish the amount of community-property waste or the appropriate reconstitution remedy.

Checklists

Building a Subsection (E) Drug-Endangerment Record

• Create a dated chronology covering conduct before removal, during services, after removal, after treatment, and through trial.
• Obtain certified drug-test results identifying the substance, test date, specimen type, cutoff level, and testing methodology.
• Document every missed, refused, diluted, substituted, or delayed test.
• Preserve admissions that a requested test would have been positive.
• Obtain certified records of drug-related arrests, convictions, probation, and incarceration.
• Connect drug use to caregiving decisions, absences, unsafe supervision, criminal exposure, or instability.
• Prove the parent’s knowledge of the service plan and the consequences of continued use.
• Document treatment referrals, enrollment, completion, discharge recommendations, and failures to follow through.
• Compare pre-treatment and post-treatment testing to establish whether treatment produced sustained change.
• Develop evidence concerning visitation suspensions or restrictions caused by noncompliance with testing.
• Address the children’s condition, stability, and progress before and after removal.
• Do not rely exclusively on the absence of direct physical injury; develop the broader course of conduct.

Defending a Parent Accused of Drug Endangerment

• Begin voluntary, verifiable testing immediately rather than waiting for court orders.
• Use a consistent testing provider and avoid unexplained gaps in the testing record.
• Complete the substance-abuse assessment promptly and follow every recommendation.
• Continue outpatient treatment, counseling, recovery meetings, or relapse-prevention services after inpatient discharge.
• Obtain testimony or records from treatment professionals concerning participation, prognosis, and aftercare.
• Prepare a documented explanation for any prescribed medication or allegedly false-positive result.
• Secure medical records supporting any claim that marijuana or another substance is used for health reasons.
• Establish stable housing, lawful income, transportation, and a workable childcare plan.
• Identify proposed relative placements early and resolve household-member or background-check barriers before trial.
• Demonstrate insight into the effect of drug use on the children rather than minimizing the relevance of the conduct.
• Prepare the parent to answer questions directly regarding frequency, duration, relapse, and sobriety dates.
• Present a specific safety plan addressing triggers, relapse, testing, treatment, and emergency caregiving.

Using Drug Evidence in Conservatorship and Possession Litigation

• Plead the requested restrictions with sufficient specificity.
• Tie each requested safeguard to a demonstrated risk to the child.
• Seek temporary testing protocols that identify frequency, specimen type, notice, costs, and consequences for noncompliance.
• Consider supervised possession, sober monitors, exchange protections, or graduated possession where appropriate.
• Obtain records through properly tailored authorizations, subpoenas, and business-record affidavits.
• Anticipate authentication, hearsay, chain-of-custody, and expert-testimony objections.
• Distinguish historical use from current impairment and evaluate the evidence of rehabilitation.
• Avoid treating a single result as conclusive when the broader testing and treatment history is mixed.
• Develop evidence concerning the child’s actual needs, routines, safety, and emotional condition.
• Frame the requested order under the applicable best-interest standard rather than importing the termination burden.

Addressing Substance Abuse in Divorce Property Claims

• Trace withdrawals, transfers, cash advances, and unexplained expenditures.
• Obtain employment and income records showing claimed losses attributable to substance abuse.
• Separate treatment expenses from alleged waste and evaluate whether each expenditure benefited the community.
• Identify criminal fines, bond payments, attorney’s fees, and other drug-related expenses.
• Preserve evidence connecting challenged expenditures to the spouse’s conduct.
• Calculate the alleged depletion rather than relying on generalized accusations.
• Plead any reconstitution or fraud-on-the-community theory supported by the evidence.
• Keep property remedies distinct from conservatorship restrictions and termination standards.

Citation

In the Interest of C.M., M.M., F.M., and G.M., Children, No. 14-26-00513-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 10, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~3edf74ee-4f07-4cad-b883-af111435b63d~~