In the Interest of J.E.H., a Child v. the State of Texas

No. 07-25-00405-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 25, 2026) · Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo · March 25, 2026 · No. No. 07-25-00405-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the Seventh District affirmed a trial court judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to J.E.H. Mother challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that termination was in J.E.H.’s best interest. The court held the evidence was sufficient, including evidence concerning unsafe housing, inadequate care, Mother’s limited compliance with the service plan, and J.E.H.’s stability and well-being in foster care.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Writing for the Court
Alex Yarbrough; Parker, C.J.; Doss, J.; Yarbrough, J.
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Decision date
March 25, 2026
Docket number
No. 07-25-00405-CV
Procedural posture
Mother brought an accelerated appeal from a judgment terminating her parental rights, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's best-interest finding.
Standard of review
In a parental-rights termination case, the appellate court reviews legal sufficiency by considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determining whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding is true. The court assumes disputed facts were resolved in favor of the finding when a reasonable factfinder could do so and disregards evidence a reasonable factfinder could disbelieve, but not undisputed evidence. For factual sufficiency, the court considers the entire record, gives due consideration to evidence the factfinder could reasonably have found clear and convincing, and asks whether disputed evidence is so significant that a reasonable factfinder could not form a firm belief or conviction.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Mother v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

termination of parental rightsparental rightsfamily law procedurestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawtermination of parental rightsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2) that termination of Mother's parental rights was in J.E.H.'s best interest.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was legally sufficient to support a firm belief or conviction that termination of Mother's parental rights was in J.E.H.'s best interest.
  2. Because Mother did not challenge the predicate grounds for termination, those findings were binding on the appellate court, and the evidence supporting them could be considered in reviewing the best-interest finding.

Key quotations

A parent’s right to the “companionship, care, custody, and management” of his or her child is a constitutional interest “far more precious than any property right.” (3)
Only one predicate finding under section 161.001[(b)](1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. (4)
Considering the applicable factors and the evidence before us, we find the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to establish a firm conviction in the mind of the trial court that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in J.E.H.’s best interest. (9)

Factual background

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved after receiving information that fifteen-year-old J.E.H. might be homeless or living in unsafe and unstable conditions. Mother lived in a dirty and cluttered residence with broken or missing windows, trash outside, no serviceable kitchen, and inconsistent utilities; J.E.H. was reportedly couch surfing, sometimes walking the streets to find a place to stay, and lacked adequate medical, educational, and other care. After removal, J.E.H. did well in foster care, wanted to remain there, and received stable housing, schooling, medical care, and support. Mother completed a psychological evaluation but did not remedy her housing situation or complete required parenting classes and counseling, and provided little financial or other support.

Procedural history

The 46th District Court of Wilbarger County terminated Mother's parental rights to J.E.H. on statutory predicate grounds of endangering conditions, endangerment, and constructive abandonment, and found that termination was in the child's best interest. Mother appealed only the best-interest finding. The Seventh Court of Appeals overruled her sole issue and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…