In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00635-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.B., A CHILD

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

M.G. (Mother) appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her child

A.R.B. 1 By her sole issue, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it terminated her

parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(B)(1)(O) because the trial court

applied the wrong version of the statute. 2 We affirm.

1 To protect the identity of minor children in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights,

parents and children are referred to by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d).
2 J.B.’s (Father) parental rights were also terminated. J.B. is not a party to this appeal.
I. AMENDED FAMILY CODE § 161.001(B)(1)(O)

Mother’s parental rights were terminated by the trial court pursuant to Texas Family

Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O). See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O).

The trial court further found that termination of her parental rights was in A.R.B.’s best

interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Mother does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the trial court’s termination findings or its best interest finding. Instead, she

only challenges the trial court’s finding on subsection (O) and contends that the trial court

improperly applied the new version of the statute. She requests this Court to “reverse and

render judgment in [her] favor on termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(O).”

In 2025, the Texas Legislature amended section 161.001 and deleted the (O)

termination grounds. See Act of May 16, 2025, 89th Leg. R.S. ch. 211, § 2, 3, 4, 2025

Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 573, 574–75. The former version of subsection (O) provided that

the trial court could terminate the parent-child relationship if it found, by clear and

convincing evidence, that the parent failed to comply with the provisions of a court ordered

family plan of service that “specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to

obtain the return of the child.” See id. The amendment repealed subsection (O) and

reordered the subsequent subsections so that subsection (O) now reads as former

subsection (P), which allows termination if the parent “used a controlled substance . . . 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.”

See id.

2
Mother contends that because this case was initiated in 2023, the trial court

improperly applied the new subsection (O) when it found that she used a controlled

substance “in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and after

completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a

controlled substance under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child.”3 See id.

However, the 2025 amendment applies to any parental termination case pending on or

after September 1, 2025. Id. (“The change in law made by this Act applies to a suit

affecting the parent-child relationship that is pending in a trial court on the effective date

of this Act or that is filed on or after the effective date of this Act.”); see In re J.C.D.Y., No.

01-25-00640-CV, 2025 WL 4099753, at *9 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 3,

2026, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that the legislature amended Family Code Section

161.001(b)(1) and repealed subsection (O), and the amendment applies to suits affecting

the parent-child relationship pending on or after September 1, 2025); In re D.M., No. 11-

25-00102-CV, 2025 WL 2980658, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 23, 2025, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (same); In re W.R.I.F., No. 05-25-01458-CV, 2026 WL 992202, at *3 n.4 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Apr. 13, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (same).

This case was initiated in 2023 and tried on October 16 and 22, 2025. Thus,

because this case was pending when the 2025 amendment took effect on September 1,

2025, the trial court was required to apply the newly amended statute. See Act of May 16,

2025, 89th Leg. R.S. ch. 211, § 2, 3, 4, 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 573, 574–75; In re

J.C.D.Y., 2025 WL 4099753, at *9 n.5; In re D.M., 2025 WL 2980658, at *1 n.2; In re

3 Notably, Mother does not request that the trial court’s judgment be modified to reflect a finding

under former subsection (P).

3
W.R.I.F., 2026 WL 992202, at *3 n.4. Because the trial court applied the correct version

of subsection (O), we overrule Mother’s sole issue.

II. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
7th day of May, 2026.

4