In THE INTEREST OF R.R.A., H.G.A., H.B.A., CHILDREN v. the State of Texas

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 22-0978
══════════

In the Interest of R.R.A., H.G.A., H.B.A., Children

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════

Argued September 12, 2023

JUSTICE BLAND delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief
Justice Hecht, Justice Lehrmann, Justice Boyd, Justice Devine, Justice
Huddle, and Justice Young joined.

JUSTICE BLACKLOCK filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice
Busby joined.

The Family Code authorizes the termination of parental rights
when a factfinder decides that (1) a parent’s conduct has met a statutory
ground for termination; and (2) termination is in the child’s best
interest. Several grounds for termination, like the ones at issue in this
case, require the factfinder to conclude that the parent’s conduct
endangered the child.
This appeal concerns the causal connection between a parent’s
illegal drug use and a child’s endangerment. Concluding that the facts
established such a connection, the trial court terminated the father’s
rights under both general endangerment and drug-use grounds. In a
split decision, however, the court of appeals reversed. The panel
majority concluded that the Department of Family and Protective
Services had failed to prove harm to the children as a direct result of
their father’s methamphetamine use. 1 The dissenting justice would
have held the evidence sufficient to conclude that the father’s illegal
drug use endangered his children.2
We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment for two reasons. First,
the court failed to apply the meaning of “endanger” for illegal-drug-use
cases we announced in In re J.O.A. 3 In J.O.A., the Court defined
“endanger” to include a substantial risk of harm to the child, giving the
word its ordinary meaning and following the Court’s longstanding
definition of endangerment pronounced in Texas Department of Human
Services v. Boyd.4 Second, the court of appeals improperly disregarded
evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the father used illegal
drugs in a manner that created a substantial risk of harm to his
children—evidence that the trial court, as factfinder, could properly
credit.
I
A
After conducting an investigation from January to March of 2020,
the Department removed Father’s three children, one-year-old twins (a

1 654 S.W.3d 535, 550 & n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022).

2 Id. at 558 (Zimmerer, J., dissenting).

3 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009).

4 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987).

2
boy and a girl) and a three-year-old daughter.5 At the time of removal,
Father and the children had been homeless for two months and were
living in Father’s car after their grandmother, Father’s mother, decided
that they could not live with her. 6 During the investigation, Father
submitted to a drug test and tested positive for methamphetamine. The
Department placed the children in foster care after Father’s mother
indicated that she could not care for them. Father again tested positive
for methamphetamine in April.
In May, the trial court approved the Department’s service plan
and ordered Father to comply with it. As part of the plan, the
Department reported that the children (in foster care at the time) were
in good health. The service plan mandated a drug-use assessment to
guide Father’s subsequent treatment and drug-testing requirements.
The plan stated that missed drug tests would be deemed to show positive
results. In June, Father tested positive for methamphetamine yet again
in a hair-follicle test, though Father’s urine test on the same day was
negative.
Father initially followed the family service plan. After testing
positive in June, Father had a string of five negative urine tests and one
negative hair-follicle test. Father also completed outpatient drug
treatment on August 19, 2020.

5 Mother abandoned the family at the time of the first removal. Mother’s

rights were terminated at the same time as Father’s, and she did not appeal.
6 Father acknowledged these circumstances in a family service plan
admitted as an exhibit at trial.

3
Based on these promising events, in September the trial court
placed the children with Father’s mother, who at that point agreed to
care for them, and it permitted Father to have supervised visitation with
the children while they were in her care.
In October, however, Father tested positive for marijuana use.
Because of this test result, the Department requested that Father
complete another substance abuse assessment. The new assessment
recommended that Father complete further outpatient drug treatment.
The court-mandated family service plan required Father to follow the
recommendations of these substance abuse assessments.
When faced with further outpatient treatment, Father stopped
complying with the plan. Father refused treatment and every
subsequent court-ordered drug test. Father missed his drug test
scheduled for November 2020. Although Father attended his December
test, he arrived with his body hair completely shaved, making a
hair-follicle test impossible.
That February, the children’s grandmother drove herself to the
hospital, where she was admitted and remained for eight days. Upon
learning that the children had been left with Father unsupervised,
which violated the court’s orders, Father’s sister notified the
Department that she was concerned for the children. Distressed that his
sister called the Department, Father became agitated and threatened to
kill himself if the Department returned the children to foster care. 7

7 The police report and hospital intake form specify that Father made

his suicide threat in front of the children. Father admits that he made the
threat but disputes that he did so in front of the children.

4
Alarmed by Father’s threat, Father’s sister called the police. Upon
arriving at the grandmother’s house, the police found a woman—
Father’s visitor—hiding in a closet. Police arrested her after she
provided false identification; further, they discovered both
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in her purse. The police
brought Father to a psychiatric hospital where he was admitted and
diagnosed with anxiety and depression. The trial court ordered the
children returned to foster care after this incident.
While in the psychiatric hospital, Father tested negative for drugs
in a urine test; the hospital has no record of a hair-follicle test. This
urinalysis is the last drug test in the record that Father completed.
According to the caseworker’s testimony, Father did not respond to
monthly emails about resuming drug testing or otherwise correspond
with the caseworker. He missed another court-ordered test in March.
The only pretrial contact the caseworker had with Father
between his February hospitalization and the September trial occurred
in May and June of 2021. After several months of being unable to reach
Father, the caseworker asked the children’s grandmother about
Father’s whereabouts, and Father called the caseworker later that day.
The two scheduled a visit between Father and the children for early
June. The Department cancelled the visit, however, on the
recommendation of the oldest child’s therapist.
The trial court reinstated Father’s visitation rights at the end of
June 2021, but Father never again responded to communications about
scheduling further visits, nor did he independently inquire about his
children’s health and well-being. Father claims that he did not respond

5
because he did not own electronic communication devices and was able
to communicate electronically only in May and June when he briefly had
access to a tablet. The caseworker explained that the Department had
sent drug-testing notices to Father’s attorney in addition to Father, and
the Department used email to contact Father because phone contact had
proved unreliable. From the end of February to the start of trial in
September, Father never visited the children or communicated with the
caseworker except about the cancelled June visit.8
Father missed another court-ordered drug test during June and
was absent from the first day of trial at the start of September.
B
The Department sought termination of Father’s parental rights
under Section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code. Subsections (b)(1)(D),
(E), and (P) are at issue in this appeal. Section 161.001(b)(1) provides
that a trial court may terminate a parent–child relationship if the court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent:
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to
remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the
physical or emotional well-being of the child;

(E) 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; [or]

....

8 Father testified that there were four cancelled visitations around the

same time, not one. Even crediting that testimony, he did not attempt to visit
the children after the June visitation reinstatement.

6
(P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481,
Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the
health or safety of the child, and:

(i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance
abuse treatment program; or

(ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance
abuse treatment program, continued to abuse
a controlled substance.9

Father testified that he had a loving relationship with his
children, he had never endangered or harmed them, and the children’s
grandmother would help him care for them as he searched for
employment. He conceded, however, that he did not communicate with
the Department after the court reinstated his visitation privileges in
June 2021. He agreed that he did not provide the Department with any
indication that he had stable housing and testified he was currently
living with a friend. He admitted his lack of participation in required
drug tests from October 2020 to September 2021 gave the court no way
of knowing whether he was drug free. Representatives from the Texas
Alcohol and Drug Testing Service validated records of Father’s
drug-testing history.
The caseworker conceded that, to her knowledge, Father had
never physically harmed the children, and she had no reason to believe
that he had threatened the children when he threatened self-harm
during the incident leading to the second removal. Father kept

9 Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P) (emphases added).

7
consistent contact with his children while the children resided with their
grandmother, but that had ended upon the second removal.
The caseworker pointed out that Father had refused to drug test
for nearly a year as the service plan required, beginning in October 2020
to the time of trial in September 2021; he was homeless with the
children and tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of the
first removal and had yet to secure stable housing; he had threatened
self-harm in front of the children, leading to his hospitalization; and he
had permitted someone who possessed methamphetamine and drug
paraphernalia in his mother’s house while he was caring for the children
unsupervised against court orders. The grandmother “expressed
previously she did not want long-term care of the children,” including
after her return from the hospital, and the Department had concerns of
“instability, as far as [the grandmother] saying she will and she will not”
care for the children.
The children’s grandmother testified that she had never seen
Father endanger the children and that the children and Father had a
close relationship. She explained that, while she told the Department
after her hospitalization that she could not care for the children, she was
in better health and felt capable of caring for them now. She said she
would allow Father to stay with her as necessary to support the children.
She also claimed that her two daughters were now willing to help. She
admitted that she did not communicate with the Department from May
until the week before the September trial.

8
At the close of evidence, the trial court found that termination
was appropriate under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (P) and that
termination was in the children’s best interest.
C
The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Father.
The majority held that the evidence presented at trial was legally
insufficient to support termination of Father’s parental rights on all
three grounds.10 Drug use alone, it held, could not result in termination
under (D) or (E), citing its own opinion in In re L.C.L.11 Rather, it held,
the statute requires that the Department prove a direct causal link
between the parent’s drug use and harm to the child.12 In its view, the
Department failed to adduce any evidence of such a link.13
Isolating each non-drug piece of evidence favoring termination,
the court of appeals further held that the trial court could not have
credited any of it to support a finding of endangerment, including
homelessness; a lack of stable employment; a past conviction for assault
of a family member;14 the failure to visit his children for more than six
months; and his visitor’s possession of methamphetamine and drug
paraphernalia at a time he was caring for the children. The court of

10 654 S.W.3d at 550.

11 Id. at 548 (citing In re L.C.L., 599 S.W.3d 79, 84–86 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (en banc)).
12 Id. at 546, 550 (citing L.C.L., 599 S.W.3d at 84–86).

13 Id. at 550, 553.

14 At trial, the Department limited its use of Father’s 2013 conviction to

the best-interest analysis.

9
appeals concluded that none of these facts, standing alone, supported
termination under the general endangerment grounds (D) or (E). This
was so, the court held, because no one piece of evidence proved that
Father had placed the children in an endangering environment.15 The
court acknowledged that the Department relied on these factors in the
aggregate to demonstrate an endangering course of conduct, but it
nonetheless concluded that the evidence was “insufficient and
undeveloped” and “present[ed] no more than a threat of metaphysical
injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family
environment.”16 It refused, for example, to credit methamphetamine use
in temporal connection with Father’s lack of housing and employment
at the time of the Department’s initial removal of the children.
The court of appeals applied the same direct-harm causal-link
requirement from its (D) and (E) analysis to subsection (P) because
“nothing in the Family Code provid[es] that the causal link required to
support termination under predicate grounds (D) and (E), as explained
in [the appellate court’s] decision in L.C.L., is inapplicable to
termination under predicate ground (P).”17 Because no direct causal link
existed between Father’s drug use and endangerment of the children, it
held, the evidence was also legally insufficient to support termination
under (P).18

15 Id. at 549–53.

16 Id. at 553.

17 Id. at 550 n.4.

18 Id. at 550 & n.4.

10
The dissenting court of appeals justice would have held the
evidence sufficient for the trial court to find that Father had endangered
the children.19 The dissent pointed to Boyd, in which this Court held
that endangering conduct need not be directed at the child and need not
result in actual injury to the child. 20 Instead, a factfinder may infer
endangerment from a course of parental misconduct that places the
child’s physical or emotional well-being at risk.21
We granted the Department’s petition for review.
II
We review de novo the court of appeals’ interpretation of
“endanger” in Family Code section 161.001.22 When reviewing whether
the evidence is legally sufficient to support termination of parental
rights, we “view the facts in a light favorable to the findings of the trial
judge, who heard the testimony, evaluated its credibility,” and dealt the
closest with the evidence at hand. 23 An appellate court “cannot
substitute [its] judgment for the factfinder’s” when considering the
credibility of the evidence presented. 24 “[T]he appellate standard for
reviewing termination findings is whether the evidence is such that a

19 Id. at 556 (Zimmerer, J., dissenting).

20 Id. (citing Boyd, 727 S.W.2d at 533).

21 Id.

22 See Aleman v. Tex. Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2019)
(“Statutory interpretation involves questions of law that we consider de
novo.”).
23 In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 315 (Tex. 2021).

24 Id. at 316.

11
factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the
truth of the State’s allegations.”25
A
We begin with subsection (P), which provides a ground for
termination based on clear and convincing evidence that the parent
“used a controlled substance . . . in a manner that endangered the health
or safety of the child” and failed to complete substance abuse treatment
or continued to abuse a controlled substance after completing
treatment. 26 Father confines his legal-sufficiency challenge to the
endangerment element; he raises no challenge to the treatment element
found in (P).
Father contends that the Department failed to show any
connection between his drug use and harm to the children’s health and
safety, rendering the evidence insufficient for termination under (P).
Father further argues that if (P) permits termination for drug use in a
manner that endangers a child, then some illegal drug use must not rise
to that level. For termination to be appropriate, Father argues, the
Department must prove a danger beyond any created from illegal drug
use alone. Only a direct link between the drug use and harm to the
child’s health and safety can satisfy this requirement.
The Department responds that the trial court reasonably could
have found that Father’s ongoing use of illegal drugs, knowing his
parental rights were at risk, constitutes drug use “in a manner” that

25 In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002).

26 Tex. Fam. Code. § 161.001(b)(1)(P).

12
endangered his children and that such use prevented Father from seeing
or appropriately caring for his three children. The Department argues
that Father’s positive test for methamphetamine while he was the sole
caregiver for the children at the time of the first removal, Father’s
drug-concealing visitor in the house with the children at the time of the
second removal, and Father’s refusal to take multiple court-ordered
drug tests demonstrate an endangering course of conduct.
We have never interpreted “endangered” in subsection (P).
However, we have interpreted “endanger” and “endangers” in
subsections (D) and (E).27 When the Legislature uses substantially the
same words and phrases in a statute, subsequent uses of that same word
in the same subject area ordinarily carry the same meaning.28 This rule
is especially true when a judicial interpretation of the word exists.29
The Legislature deployed “endangered” in ground (P) nearly ten
years after the Court interpreted “endanger” for grounds (D) and (E) in
Boyd. 30 We thus give “endangered” in (P) the meaning we assigned
“endanger(s)” in Boyd. In Boyd, our Court held that a parent’s
endangering conduct need not “be directed at the child or that the child
actually suffers injury.”31 Instead, endangerment encompasses a larger
array of conduct that “expose[s a child] to loss or injury” or

27 Id. § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (P).

28 Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 639, 647 (Tex. 2020).

29 Id.

30 Act of May 19, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 575, § 9, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws

2012, 2015.
31 727 S.W.2d at 533.

13
“jeopardize[s]” the child. 32 This definition matches the ordinary
meaning of endangerment, which does not require actual harm. 33 A
factfinder may infer endangerment from “a course of conduct” that
presents substantial risks to the child’s physical or emotional
well-being—the focus of grounds (D) and (E)—or to the child’s health
and safety—the focus of ground (P).34 Those risks can be developed by
circumstances arising from and surrounding a parent’s behavior. Such
risks must be more than “a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible
ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment.”35
We applied Boyd’s endangerment standard to evaluate a parent’s
drug use in In re J.O.A., a case that postdates the addition of ground (P).
In J.O.A., the Department removed three children from their parents
after the youngest two children, twins, tested positive for cocaine at
birth.36 The parents’ rights were terminated at trial for the twins but
not for the oldest child. 37 On appeal, the mother’s termination was
upheld, but the father’s was reversed.38 The court of appeals reasoned
that the twins, removed from their father at birth, were never in any
danger occasioned by their father’s drug use.39 Our Court reversed the

32 Id.

33 See id. (looking to dictionary definitions of “endanger”).

34 See id. at 534.

35 Id. at 533.

36 283 S.W.3d at 340.

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Id. at 345.

14
court of appeals’ judgment, holding that “a parent’s use of narcotics and
its effect on his or her ability to parent may qualify as an endangering
course of conduct,” even though the twins were not in the father’s care.40
The father in J.O.A. “admitted to daily marijuana use,” though
not to use in front of his oldest child. 41 The parents had a history of
domestic violence, and the father often allowed his daughter to stay
alone with the mother “although he presumably knew this was not in
their daughter’s best interests” given the mother’s known drug use.42 As
in this case, the father missed multiple drug tests after the children’s
removal, and he “tested positive for marijuana shortly before the final
hearing commenced.” 43 Though the father had “attended a substance
abuse program and parenting classes” and “obtained steady
employment, improved housing, and reliable transportation for his
children,” we held that “evidence of improved conduct, especially of
short-duration, does not conclusively negate the probative value of a
long history of drug use and irresponsible choices.”44 The father’s course
of conduct permitted a reasonable factfinder to find endangerment by
clear and convincing evidence.
J.O.A. confirms that endangerment does not require a parent’s
drug use to directly harm the child. Instead, a pattern of parental
behavior that presents a substantial risk of harm to the child permits a

40 Id.

41 Id. at 346.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

15
factfinder to reasonably find endangerment. Because the Legislature
chose to use the word “endangered” in ground (P) in a manner similar to
its use in grounds (D) and (E), the Boyd and J.O.A. standard for
endangerment applies to the effects of a parent’s drug use on a child’s
health and safety under (P).
We hold that the court of appeals erred in requiring direct
evidence that Father’s drug use resulted in physical injury to his
children. The court of appeals’ narrow definition of endangerment
diverges from the ordinary meaning of “endanger” and our Court’s
precedent construing the term, which permits a factfinder to infer a risk
of harm from parental conduct that, while not directed toward the child,
presents a substantial risk to the child’s health and safety.45
While illegal drug use alone may not be sufficient to show
endangerment, a pattern of drug use accompanied by circumstances
that indicate related dangers to the child can establish a substantial risk
of harm. A reviewing court should not evaluate drug-use evidence in

45 We disapprove of the court of appeals’ direct-harm holding in L.C.L.

and cases in which that holding has been cited with approval. See, e.g., In re
K.H., No. 10-21-00073-CV, 2021 WL 4080261, at *7 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 8,
2021, pet. denied) (citing to the direct-harm standard from L.C.L. in holding
“drug use alone is insufficient to support a finding of an endangering course of
conduct”).
L.C.L. conflicted with other appellate courts when it was decided. See
In re L.C.L., 629 S.W.3d 909, 910 (Tex. 2021) (Lehrmann, J., concurring in the
denial) (listing conflicting precedent in other courts of appeals). We agree with
those courts holding that endangerment may be inferred from a course of
parental conduct that creates a serious risk to a child’s physical or emotional
well-being. See, e.g., D.H. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 652 S.W.3d
54, 61 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, no pet.) (disagreeing with the holding in L.C.L.
that “direct evidence is required to show a causal link between drug use and
endangerment”).

16
isolation; rather, it should consider additional evidence that a factfinder
could reasonably credit that demonstrates that illegal drug use presents
a risk to the parent’s “ability to parent.”46
B
Applying the Boyd standard for endangerment to the drug-use
termination ground (P), we consider the sufficiency of the
drug-use-related evidence in this case. A factfinder could find that the
manner of Father’s drug use endangered the health or safety of his
children. Father was the only present parent of the children at the time
of the first removal.47 Grandmother refused to take possession of the
children at that time. Father used felony-level drugs as the primary
caregiver of the children when there were no other relatives willing to
care for them. In Texas, possession of methamphetamine is at least a
state jail felony.48
At or around that time, Father and the children were living in
Father’s car. Father’s homelessness and employment difficulties have a
close temporal relationship with his drug use, and a factfinder could
reasonably infer Father’s difficulties in providing shelter and support

46 J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345. The J.F.-G. Court also looked to
surrounding, related conduct when determining that a parent’s incarceration,
in context, helped demonstrate endangerment. See 627 S.W.3d at 315
(“[M]ultiple criminal episodes of escalating seriousness—together with the
duration and consequences of the incarceration, is relevant when the resulting
abandonment presents a risk . . . to a child’s physical or emotional well-being.”).
47 In testimony, Father claimed that Mother had abandoned the family

when the twins were less than a year old and that he cared for the children on
his own.
48 Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102, .115.

17
for his three very young children were related to his drug use. Father’s
continued lack of housing and ability to support his children exemplify
risks that a pattern of drug use can create. A court need not require
physical injury from these risks to materialize to find that the children’s
health and safety have been endangered by them; a pattern of illegal
drug use in such a context is evidence from which a factfinder may infer
endangerment. Appropriate deference to the factfinder “assume[s] that
the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding”; a reviewing
court can set aside findings only if “no reasonable factfinder could form
a firm belief or conviction” in those findings. 49 Our opinion does not
render the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard toothless; instead, it
properly defers credibility determinations to factfinders at the trial
court level, who most closely interact with the witnesses.50

49 In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002).

50 The dissent would foreclose a factfinder from relying on inferences

from the facts to find that clear and convincing evidence established
endangerment. Reviewing courts, however, must defer to the factfinder’s
judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to give their
testimony, including reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence. See
In re Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541, 548 (Tex. 2020). Such inferences must be
reasonable and based on other facts proved. See In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796,
806 (Tex. 2012) (“Deportation flowing from an unknown offense occurring
many years earlier cannot satisfy the State’s burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that a parent engaged in an endangering course of
conduct, nor can mere guesswork undergird such a finding.”). In this case, for
example, the factfinder could have disbelieved grandmother’s statements at
trial as to her present ability to care for the children, given her refusal to do so
on two other occasions and lack of communication with the Department and
the children after their second removal. The record supports a factfinder’s
determination beyond mere guesswork that Father’s drug use, housing
difficulties, financial instability, six-month absence from the children’s lives,

18
III
Although termination under (P) is sufficient to reverse the
judgment of the court of appeals, we must also review termination under
subsections (D) and (E) because a finding of termination under those
grounds may justify termination of parental rights to other children
under subsection (M).51
A
Father argues that the Legislature’s addition of (P) in 1997
renders drug use an insufficient basis to support termination under (D)
and (E). We disagree that the inclusion of (P) forces the exclusion of
drug-related conduct as endangering conduct under (D) and (E). Newly
added specific grounds for termination under section 161.001 do not
expressly circumscribe the scope of provisions (D) and (E). 52 “[C]onduct
that might endanger a child’s physical or emotional well-being” is
relevant for termination under subsections (D) and (E) concomitantly
with a more specifically applicable subsequent ground. 53 The

and lack of familial support, among other things, resulted in an overarching
endangering environment for these children.
51 See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235–37 (Tex. 2019); see also Tex. Fam.

Code § 161.001(b)(1)(M).
52 See J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d at 313–14. We held in J.F.-G. that the
incarceration-based ground for termination in section 161.001 did not
“exclusively define the circumstances in which a parent’s crimes or
incarceration can support termination.” Id. at 314. When the Legislature
added an incarceration-specific ground for termination, it did not rewrite
subsection (E) to exclude conduct that leads to incarceration. Likewise,
subsection (P) does not exclusively define the circumstances in which drug use
can result in termination.
53 Id. at 313–14.

19
Legislature could have carved out drug use from grounds (D) and (E)
when adding ground (P) to section 161.001, but it did not. By adding
ground (P), “the Legislature has expanded the grounds for termination,
not curtailed them.”54 Drug-related conduct considered under (P) thus
may also inform the (D) and (E) termination analysis.55
Father also relies on subsection 261.001(1) of the Family Code,
which defines drug abuse in the mandatory-reporting context. That
subsection defines “abuse” in part as “the current use by a person of a
controlled substance . . . in a manner or to the extent that the use results
in physical, mental, or emotional injury to a child.” 56 The
abuse-reporting statute’s explicit requirement of materialized harm is
not a reason to depart from our Court’s longstanding, plain-meaning
definition of endangerment.57

54 Id. at 314.

55 See J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345–46 (considering a parent’s drug use

when terminating parental rights under (D) and (E)). The fact that the parent’s
conduct in this case, and perhaps in most cases involving drug use, could result
in termination under (D), (E), and (P) does not render (P) superfluous. At a
minimum, termination under (D) or (E) provides the predicate for termination
in subsequent cases under subsection (M), while (P) is available without the
same ramifications. Whether a parent whose drug use is ameliorated by
completing court-ordered treatment could nonetheless have his or her rights
terminated under (D) and (E) without any evidence of additional endangering
conduct is not before us.
56 Tex. Fam. Code § 261.001(1)(I).

57 The Family Code places the requirement to report on “[a] person
having reasonable cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or
welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect.” Tex. Fam. Code
§ 261.101(a). A direct-harm definition of abuse in that context might
reasonably heighten the standard for creating an obligation to report. The

20
B
On review, the court of appeals is “required to view the facts in a
light favorable to the findings of the trial judge”58 and reverse only if “no
reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction” that its
finding is true.59 In reversing the trial court’s termination judgment, the
court of appeals relied on the caseworker’s testimony that there was no
evidence Father used drugs around the children; that he had a good,
loving relationship with the children; and that the caseworker had not
witnessed Father endangering the children. As the dissenting court of
appeals justice observed, however, the court ignored evidence the trial
court could have credited, including the caseworker’s testimony that
Father had refused drug testing for nearly a year; had stopped visiting
the children and had not inquired about their well-being; and had not
shown he could provide stable living or employment arrangements.
The court of appeals should not have ignored the aggregate
weight of Father’s ongoing drug use, homelessness, employment
instability, and near-complete abandonment of his children for the six
months preceding trial. The trial court reasonably could have inferred
that this conduct, in the aggregate, endangered the children’s physical
and emotional well-being. Whether Father’s bond with the children
warrants further work toward reunification is most appropriately

plain meaning of “abuse” includes direct harm in a way the plain meaning of
“endanger” does not.
58 J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d at 315.

59 J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266.

21
addressed in a best-interest determination—an issue we are remanding
to the court of appeals.
Father’s positive drug tests in 2020 and across-the-board refusal
to undergo service-plan tests from November 2020 to September 2021
sufficiently develop Father’s continued pattern of drug use. The family
service plan, which Father acknowledged at the outset, deemed a failure
to test as a positive test. With this testing information in the record, a
factfinder could infer that Father used drugs while his termination
proceedings were pending. Father’s failure to test coincided with his
disengagement from communications, services, and the children
themselves, posing a substantial risk to the children’s emotional
well-being. 60 Accordingly, we hold that legally sufficient evidence
supports the trial court’s determination that Father’s conduct
endangered the children under (D) and (E).
IV
Father also challenged the trial court’s best-interest findings in
the court of appeals. That court did not reach Father’s challenge, and
the parties did not brief the issue before us. We therefore remand this
case to the court of appeals for a best-interest determination.61
* * *

60 See J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 (listing father’s use of marijuana
“shortly before the final hearing” as evidence in favor of termination).
61 Because we affirm termination on the (D), (E), and (P) grounds, we

need not reach the Department’s other challenges, including: (1) the court of
appeals’ refusal to consider the Department’s cross-point; (2) the reversal of
the Department’s appointment as managing conservator; and (3) the court of
appeals’ decision to render judgment rather than remand.

22
A parent’s pattern of illegal use of a controlled substance like
methamphetamine supports a finding of endangerment under (P) when
the evidence shows it adversely affected the parent’s ability to parent,
presenting a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health and safety.
Such drug-use evidence is also relevant under the (D) and (E) grounds
for termination. When a pattern of drug use is coupled with credible
evidence of attendant risks to employment, housing, and prolonged
absence from the children, a factfinder reasonably can find
endangerment to the child’s physical or emotional well-being under (D)
and (E). We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to
that court to review the trial court’s best-interest finding.

______________________________
Jane N. Bland
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: March 22, 2024

23