Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E.G. and E.S., Children · filed 2015-03-23(1)(D), (1)(E), (2)

For a trial court to terminate a parent-child relationship, the Department must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s actions satisfy one ground listed in family code section 161.001(1) and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Subsections (1)(F) and (1)(P) did not support termination where evidence of required elements was absent.

in the Interest of N.G.J., a Child · filed 2015-03-26(1)(F), (1)(P)

Given this complete absence of evidence on that element, termination of D.J.J.’s parental rights cannot be supported under Section 161.001(1)(F) of the Family Code. ... Because of this complete absence of such evidence, termination of D.J.J.’s parental rights is not supported under Section 161.001(1)(P) of the Family Code.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of K.T., a Child · filed 2015-05-28(b)

For a trial court to terminate a parent-child relationship, the Department must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s actions satisfy one ground listed in family code section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes a statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child's best interest.

in the Interest of K.L.P. and H.D.P., Children · filed 2015-04-16(1), (2)

The Family Code permits a court to order termination of parental rights if the petitioner establishes one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (1) of the statute and also proves that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2012); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex. 1976). We agree with counsel's evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination.

Section 161.001 applies alongside the Indian Child Welfare Act in termination proceedings involving Indian children; the Act’s beyond a reasonable doubt requirement applies only to its separate finding about harm to the child.

in the Interest of G.C., M.C., and H.C., Children · filed 2015-08-13

We agree with the Tyler court of appeals’s analysis and hold that, under the facts of this proceeding, section 1912(f) is not in conflict with section 161.001 of the family code. By doing so, we further hold that section 1912(f)’s requirement of a finding beyond a reasonable doubt is limited to the finding expressly stated in section 1912(f) that “the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.3”

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights.

in the Interest of G.H., a Child · filed 2015-06-19

Termination decisions must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

One predicate ground under subsection (1), together with a best-interest finding, is enough to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of M.B.M. and J.J.M., Children · filed 2015-08-27(1)

Because L.M. does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings pursuant to subsections 161.001(1)(M), (N), (O), or (P), and the trial court also found that termination was in the children’s best interest, as discussed below, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support its findings pursuant to subsections 161.001(1)(D) and (E).

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights, including evidence supporting a ground for termination at trial.

in the Interest of S.F., a Child · filed 2015-09-10

The termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. FAM. § 161.001. ... Even if Section 161.004 applied, the Department was required to present evidence at the subsequent trial to support its grounds for termination.

Section 161.001 permits termination when one predicate ground is established and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Guardianship of Lonnie Phillips, Jr., an Incapacitated Person · filed 2015-10-22

Only one predicate finding under section 161.001 is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child's best interest.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence to support a judgment terminating parental rights.

in the Interest of J.F.B., E.C., A.J.C., and A.L.C. · filed 2015-10-07

Judgments terminating parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 161.001 requires proof of only one statutory predicate ground to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of A.H.J., A.H. and A.H., Children · filed 2015-10-08(1)

The Department is only required to prove one statutory predicate ground to support a termination of parental rights.

Section 161.001 does not support terminating a parent’s rights to children when the court made no findings concerning those rights and the Department did not seek their termination.

L. D. N. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2015-10-16

However, we note that although the trial court’s termination order purports to terminate L.D.N.’s parental rights with respect to all three children, neither the order nor the record contains any findings by the trial court concerning L.D.N.’s rights with respect to Q.M.K.K. or Q.J.K. ... We therefore conclude that the trial court’s order erroneously purported to terminate L.D.N.’s rights with respect to Q.M.K.K. and Q.J.K.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangering conduct or failure to comply with a court order for the child’s return, and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of Z.G. · filed 2015-11-05(1)(E), (1)(O), (2)

Accordingly, we conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant committed the predicate acts enumerated in section 161.001(1)(E) and (O), and that termination is in Z.G.’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination based on conduct that endangers a child when termination is also in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.N. and J.N., Children · filed 2015-11-19(b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

For the reasons set out in that opinion, we find in this appeal that (1) the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (2) the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interests of J.E.N. and J.H.N.

One predicate finding under Section 161.001(1) supports termination when termination is also in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of M. C. M. AKA, Baby Girl M. · filed 2015-12-17(1)

A single predicate finding under Section 161.001(1) of the Family Code is sufficient to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001 does not apply to an order that leaves a parent as possessory conservator rather than terminating the parent-child relationship.

Caldwell v. Garfutt · filed 2016-01-07

The final order, however, does not terminate his parental relationship but appoints him possessory conservator. Thus, section 161.001 does not apply here.

One unchallenged statutory ground supports termination if termination is also in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.N.B., a Child · filed 2016-05-12(b)(1)

Accordingly, we need not address Appellant’s second issue in which she challenges the legal sufficiency of the finding made pursuant to subsection (E) because the unchallenged finding under subsection (O) is sufficient to support termination as long as termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires a statutory ground for termination and a separate finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S.D., L.D., A.D., and J.E., Children · filed 2016-07-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed in compliance with section 161.001 and that termination of J.D.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires proof of a statutory ground for termination and proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S. P., a Child · filed 2016-09-14

Under this provision, the petitioner must (1) establish one or more of the statutory acts or omissions enumerated as grounds for termination, and (2) prove that termination is in the best interest of the children.

Section 161.001 requires only one predicate ground and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest to support a termination judgment.

in the Interest of E.P., a Child · filed 2016-08-04(b)(1)

“Only one predicate finding under section 161.001(1) is necessary to support a judgment of termination when there is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). There was such a finding in this case. Therefore, we need not address Appellant’s argument that subsection Q violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires only one predicate ground to support termination, so an unchallenged ground can sustain the judgment on appeal.

in the Interest of L.A.S., a Child · filed 2016-08-17(b)(1)

A finding of only one ground for termination alleged under Section 161.001(b)(1) is sufficient to support a judgment of termination.

An unchallenged finding under subsection (b)(1)(M) can support termination without review of other predicate grounds.

in the Interest of J.F.G., III, a Child · filed 2016-08-05(b)(1)(M)

Here, S.J. does not challenge the trial court’s finding with respect to Section 161.001(1)(M). Because this ground can support the order of termination, it is unnecessary to review legal and factual sufficiency arguments as to the other grounds.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires proof of only one predicate ground to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of H.P. and F.P., Children · filed 2016-10-06(b)(1)

Because section 161.001(b)(1) requires proof of only one predicate ground to support termination, we do not address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding under the other subsections.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of both a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of L.M., a Child · filed 2016-10-13(b)

For a trial court to terminate a parent-child relationship, the party seeking termination must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s actions satisfy one ground listed in family code section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

One predicate finding under section 161.001(b)(1) is enough to support termination when termination is also found to be in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of A.S.S., a Child · filed 2016-12-07(b)(1)

As previously noted, 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.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires proof of only one statutory ground to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of A.A.T., a Child · filed 2016-12-28(b)(1)

In other words, if multiple predicate grounds are found by the trier of fact, an appellate court may affirm based on any one ground because only ... one ground is necessary for termination.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear-and-convincing evidence of a listed act or omission and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of B.D.A., L.A.A.-M., and J.X.A., Children · filed 2017-07-25(b)

In proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship, the Department must establish by clear-and-convincing evidence that the parent committed one of the acts or omissions listed in Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of T.M. and E. M., Children · filed 2017-05-09(b)

In a case to terminate parental rights under section 161.001 of the Family Code, the Department must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the parent committed one or more of the enumerated acts or omissions justifying termination and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001 permits termination when sufficient evidence supports at least one statutory ground and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of P.S. and P.S., Children · filed 2017-09-20(b)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that sufficient evidence existed to support at least one ground for termination, in compliance with section 161.001 of the Family Code, and that termination of A.S.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b)(1) supports termination when at least one alleged ground is proved, even if the evidence may be insufficient for another ground.

in the Interest of E.L., a Child · filed 2017-12-07(b)(1)

As counsel notes in her brief, although the evidence arguably was not sufficient to justify termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(P), the other five section 161.001(b)(1) grounds alleged and proved supported the termination.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires the Department to prove a listed ground for termination when an alleged father appears at trial and admits paternity.

In re M.J.M.G. · filed 2017-12-20(b)(1)

Accordingly, V.M.'s appearance and participation in the trial court, including his sworn admission that he was M.J.M'G.'s father, was sufficient to trigger his right to have the Department prove one of the grounds for termination listed in section 161.001(b)(1).

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of L.R.R., a Child · filed 2018-01-19(b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(O), (b)(2)

To terminate parental rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)–(U) and that termination is in the best interest of the child. ... We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the findings as to each parent under subsections (E) and (O). ... We hold that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best interest findings.

One statutory ground under section 161.001(b)(1), together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support termination.

B. H.-L. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2018-03-13(b)(1)

Therefore, the trial court’s unchallenged findings that B.H.-L. committed conduct satisfying Paragraph (P) and that termination was in the children’s best interest are sufficient to support the court’s termination order.

Section 161.001(b)(1) permits termination for constructive abandonment when the evidence supports that ground, but endangerment findings under (D) and (E) require legally sufficient evidence of danger to the child.

in the Interest of C.M.C. · filed 2018-07-12(b)(1)(D), (E), (N)

We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Mother violated section 161.001(b)(1)(N) of the Texas Family Code, and termination of Mother’s rights to C.M.C. is in the best interest of the child. However, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that Mother endangered her child under subsections D and E.

Section 161.001 permits termination when the evidence supports at least one statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of A.W. and K.C., Children · filed 2018-08-15(b)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that sufficient evidence existed to support at least one ground for termination, and that termination of Frank’s parental rights was in A.W. and K.C.’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing proof of both a listed parental act or omission and the child’s best interest before parental rights may be terminated.

in the Interest of A.H., A.D. and A.T., Children · filed 2018-07-25

Both elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and proof of one element does not alleviate the petitioner’s burden of proving the other. ... We conclude that the lack of clear and convincing evidence to support terminating C.T.T.’s parental rights presents an arguable issue for appeal and warrants abatement and remand.

Section 161.001 permits termination when sufficient evidence supports at least one statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S.S.C. and X.C., Children · filed 2018-08-13

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that sufficient evidence existed to support at least one ground for termination, and that termination of Mandy’s parental rights was in X.C.’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E.O.R. and A.A.A.G., II., Children · filed 2018-09-12(b)

Considering all the evidence in the appropriate light for each standard of review, we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mom’s acts or omissions violated statutory grounds (D), (E), (O), and (P), and terminating Mom’s parental rights to E.O.R. and A.A.A.G. was in the children’s best interests.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and the child’s best interest to terminate parental rights.

in the Interest of C.J., a Child · filed 2018-09-20(b)

After reviewing the entire record, we conclude that the trial court’s findings that Mother’s conduct satisfied a conduct ground listed in section 161.001(b)(1) and alleged in the petition and that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was in C.J.’s best interest were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of C.K., a Child · filed 2018-10-10(b)

Considering all the evidence, we conclude the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings of at least one predicate ground for termination and that terminating Dad’s parental rights to his children was in the children’s best interests.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of A.T.H., a Child · filed 2018-11-07(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in A.T.H.’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when a ground under (D) or (E) exists and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of C v. a Child · filed 2018-11-01(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a reasonable belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of A.T.’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (2).

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E.O.R. and A.A.A.G., II., Children · filed 2018-11-07(b)

Considering all the evidence in the appropriate light for each standard of review, we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mom’s acts or omissions violated statutory grounds (D), (E), (O), and (P), and terminating Mom’s parental rights to E.O.R. and A.A.A.G. was in the children’s best interests.

Only one predicate ground under § 161.001(b)(1), together with a best-interest finding, is necessary to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of C.A. and L.A., Children · filed 2018-11-12(b)(1)

However, only one § 161.001(b)(1) predicate finding (plus a best-interest finding) is necessary to support a judgment terminating parental rights.

One predicate ground under § 161.001(b)(1) is enough to support termination when termination is also found to be in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of A.Z.C. AKA A.Z.H. a Child · filed 2018-12-04(b)(1)

Because Mother failed to challenge the predicate grounds for termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(E) & (R), the trial court’s findings under those sections suffice to sustain the predicate grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (N) provide grounds for terminating parental rights based on an endangering course of conduct or constructive abandonment.

in the Interest of M.D.P., a Child · filed 2018-11-20(b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(N)

We hold that the trial court’s findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (N) are supported by the record.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports the termination findings.

in the Interest of A.R.P. · filed 2018-11-28(b)

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.T.G and E.R.G., Children · filed 2018-12-05

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence the sole ground for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S.N.M., L.A.M., and B.C.M. · filed 2018-12-19

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence the sole grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires sufficient evidence of at least one statutory ground before parental rights may be terminated.

in the Interest of M.A.S.L. and K.J.L., Children · filed 2018-12-19(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O)

Although the trial court found two statutory grounds for termination, neither is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child's best interest.

In re R.J. · filed 2019-02-05(b)

Here, the Department was required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother's and Father's actions satisfied one of the predicate grounds listed in Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1) and that termination was in Ray's best interest.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of a predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of T.B., G.H., and E.W. · filed 2018-12-27(b)

To terminate parental rights pursuant to section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code, the Department has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) one of the predicate grounds in subsection 161.001(b)(1); and (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports at least one statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of K.T., a Child · filed 2019-01-28(b)(1), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that sufficient evidence existed to support at least one ground for termination, and that termination of Kathy’s parental rights was in Kate’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of P.M. Children · filed 2019-01-30(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003).

Section 161.001 permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one statutory ground and termination is in the children’s best interest.

in the Interest of N.M.R. and A.P.R.N., Children · filed 2019-02-13(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination of M.R.’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports at least one statutory ground and the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of C.J.J. Jr., a Child · filed 2018-12-27(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in C.J.J. Jr.’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangering surroundings or conduct, or failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan, and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J. S., M. S., M. S., M. S., and J. S., Children · filed 2019-01-16(b)(1)(D), (E), (O)

Therefore, we hold that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the findings, was sufficiently clear and convincing that a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that D.S. and S.S. knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional well-being, and engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children. ... Furthermore, we hold that the trial court’s determination that D.S. and S.S. failed to comply with the requirements of the service plan is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(M) permits a prior termination for endangerment to support termination even while review of the prior decree is pending.

in the Interest of R. J, Jr., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-02-05(b)(1)(M)

Based on our decision in In re A.C., we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s Subsection (M) finding, supporting termination of Father’s parental rights to Ray.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of D.J.C., a Child · filed 2019-02-20(1), (2)

Notwithstanding the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under section 161.001(1), we must also find clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the child's best interest. ... We agree with counsel’s evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence under the appropriate legal and factual sufficiency standards for the jury to have determined that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best interest of D.J.C.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when a statutory ground exists and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J. S. and M. S., Children · filed 2019-03-18(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a reasonable belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of B.S.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Section 161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of I.A.A., a Child · filed 2019-03-20(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in I.A.A.’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S.B., T.B., A.B., and K.B., Children · filed 2019-03-28(b)

For a trial court to terminate a parent–child relationship, TDFPS must prove two elements by clear and convincing evidence: 1) that the parent’s actions satisfy one ground listed in family code section 161.001(b)(1); and 2) that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E)’s endangerment ground does not apply when termination rests on other statutory grounds.

in the Interest of W.J.S., a Child · filed 2019-02-28(b)(1)(E)

Thus, Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and the portion of E.N.C. that Appellant relies upon are not applicable to this appeal.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of Z.S., Child · filed 2019-04-18(b)

For a trial court to terminate a parent–child relationship, the Department must prove two elements by clear and convincing evidence: 1) that the parent’s actions satisfy one ground listed in family code section 161.001(b)(1); and 2) that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) supports termination when the evidence permits a firm belief that a statutory ground exists and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.D., Jr., a Child · filed 2019-04-15(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of J.D., Sr.’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (2).

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in Re G.I.P. and C v. · filed 2019-05-01(b)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in George’s and Charles’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003).

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when a statutory ground exists and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of T.C., a Child · filed 2019-04-16(b)(1), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of C.M.’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires only one predicate ground to support termination of parental rights.

in the Interest of B.W., a Child · filed 2019-05-09(b)(1)

Because only one ground under section (b)(1) is necessary to support termination, we overrule Father’s second issue.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing proof to terminate parental rights.

in the Interest of K.N.J., N.-L.F.J., and F.J.J., III, Children · filed 2019-07-03(b)

Both the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution thus require the State to meet the heightened evidentiary standard of clear and convincing proof.

Section 161.001(b)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights.

in the Interest of E.K. and C.K., Minor Children · filed 2019-07-31(b)(1)

We agree with counsel’s evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Section 161.001(b)(1) against Jesse K.

Section 161.001 permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes a statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E. D. D., III, a Child · filed 2019-08-07(b)(1)(N)

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental endangerment under (b)(1)(D) or (E) and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest under (b)(2).

in the Interest of S.J.B. and A.B. · filed 2019-08-08(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants committed the predicate acts enumerated in sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E) and that termination of appellants’ parental rights is in the best interest of S.J.B. and A.B.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when repeated physical abuse endangers children through both their home environment and a parent’s conduct.

in the Interest of A.B.-G. and A.B.-G., Children · filed 2019-08-08(b)(1)(D), (E)

In short, Mother engaged in a course of endangering conduct. Because the children lived with Mother, she also created an environment that endangered them physically.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent knowingly allowed a child to remain in endangering surroundings or engaged in a course of conduct that endangered the child.

in Re E.F.M. and L.G.Z., Children · filed 2019-08-28(b)(1)(D), (E)

Having reviewed the record, we hold the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that H.H. knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical well-being and engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered their physical or emotional well-being.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent endangered a child through unsafe surroundings or a course of conduct, and termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of A.M. · filed 2019-08-29(b)(1)(D), (E)

We conclude the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father committed the predicate acts enumerated in subsections D and E.

Subsections (b)(1)(D) and (E) allow termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent knowingly exposed a child to endangering conditions or engaged in or knowingly exposed the child to endangering conduct.

in the Interest of N. G., a Child · filed 2019-08-30(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E)

The evidence is therefore legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under both subsections D and E.

Subsections (b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangering surroundings or endangering parental conduct.

in the Interest of L. C., a Child · filed 2019-09-27(b)(1)(D), (E)

Therefore, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination of R.C.’s parental rights under subsections (D) and (E) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b).

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangering conditions or conduct and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of C.H and A.H. · filed 2019-10-17(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that K.K. committed the predicate acts enumerated in sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination of K.K.’s parental rights is in the best interest of C.H. and A.H.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangerment under subsection (b)(1)(D) or (E) and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest under subsection (b)(2).

in the Interest of B.W., a Child · filed 2019-11-12(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in B.W.’s best interest. See § 161.001(b)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2019); In re M.M., No. 07-19-00105-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7505, at *9. Specifically, we conclude the trial court’s findings with respect to subsections (D) and (E) and its finding with respect to the best interest of B.W. were supported by the evidence.

Subsection (D) permits termination when a parent’s conduct creates an environment that endangers a child; subsection (E) requires a conscious course of conduct that endangers the child.

in the Interest of K.B., a Child · filed 2019-10-25(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E)

We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that Mother’s conduct created ... an environment that endangered K.B.’s physical and emotional well-being. ... We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that Mother consciously engaged in a course of conduct that had the effect of endangering K.B.’s physical or emotional well-being.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) permits termination for endangering surroundings, while (E) permits termination for an endangering course of conduct.

in the Interest of R.S.C. Jr. · filed 2019-11-14(b)(1)(D), (E)

We conclude the evidence at trial was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s findings that Father endangered R.S.C. Jr. under both subsection (D) and (E).

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) covers endangerment from a child’s surroundings, while (E) covers a parent’s course of endangering conduct.

in the Interest of M.B. and M.B., Children · filed 2019-11-14(b)(1)(D), (E)

Because we hold the evidence of endangerment pursuant to §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), and (E) to be both legally and factually sufficient, we need not address the remaining ground.

Section 161.001(b) supports termination when unchallenged predicate grounds and a best-interest finding remain after other predicate findings are deleted.

in the Interest of J.G. and A.P., Children · filed 2019-11-20(b)

Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial court’s termination order to delete the findings under sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) of the Family Code. Given that Perez does not challenge the remaining two predicate grounds for termination of his parental rights under section 161.001 of the Family Code or the best-interest grounds, we otherwise affirm the trial court’s termination order in all other respects.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a child was endangered by the child's surroundings or by a parent's course of conduct.

in the Interest of T.C., a Child · filed 2019-12-05(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E)

We hold that the evidence sufficed both legally and factually to support the trial court’s (D) and (E) findings.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when a parent’s failure to protect children from known abuse and pattern of remaining in abusive relationships endanger their physical or emotional well-being.

in the Interest of T.S., R.S., I.S., and S.S., Children · filed 2019-12-05(b)(1)(D), (E)

From her failure to protect the children from Houston’s abuse and her pattern of remaining in abusive relationships without regard to the impact that the abuse had on the children, we conclude that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient for the factfinder to form a firm conviction and belief that Mother placed the children in conditions and engaged in conduct which endangered their physical and emotional well-being.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports a statutory ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.J.M., a Child · filed 2019-12-18(b)

The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s determination by clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate on each of the identified grounds under § 161.001(b) and that it was in the best interest of J.J.M.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes the child’s best interest and a ground such as constructive abandonment or failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of J.P-L., a Child · filed 2019-12-19(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O), (b)(2)

... by an affidavit, by the date of the June 24, 2019 trial, Mother had been absent from the case and from J.P.-L.’s life for approximately nine months and had failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan, meeting both the constructive abandonment20 and failure-to-comply21 termination grounds in addition to demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her rights was in J.P.-L.’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination for endangering conditions or conduct when clear and convincing evidence also establishes that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of a Child A. A. H AKA A.H v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2020-03-05(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2)

Having found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the termination of Father’s parental rights to Alexa under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and § 161.001(b)(2), we affirm the trial court’s Final Decree for Termination as to him.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of one listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of S.K.B., a Child · filed 2020-08-13(b)

We have reviewed Appellant’s response and would note that, to terminate parental rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has committed only one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)–(U) and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports an endangerment ground under (D) or (E) and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of J.M.C., P.A.S.M., J.A.M A/K/A J.M., Jr., Children · filed 2021-06-30(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

The trial court found the children’s mother, L.S., knowingly placed or knowingly ... allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being and that she engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E). The court also found that termination of L.S.’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). ... We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings and there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of M.F.R. · filed 2021-09-23(b)(1)-(2)

To obtain a verdict terminating someone’s parental-rights, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence two things: (1) the parent engaged in conduct that violated one of the twenty-one subsections listed in section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code; and (2) a decision terminating the parent’s rights to the child is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires proof of a statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest; best-interest evidence alone is insufficient.

in the Interest of Z.A., a Child · filed 2021-08-06(b)

However, the Department did not offer any evidence that E.S.S. committed the acts or omissions alleged under section 161.001. On appeal, the Department cites only evidence purportedly showing that termination was in Z.A.’s best interest. This, however, is insufficient to terminate an adjudicated father’s rights under section 161.001.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes an endangerment ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of B.S. and R.N. · filed 2021-08-12(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that D.N. committed the predicate acts enumerated in sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination of D.N.’s parental rights is in the best interest of B.S. and R.N.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangerment under subsection (b)(1)(D) or (E) and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest under subsection (b)(2).

in the Interest of K.F. and K.F. · filed 2021-08-26(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2)

The movant must show that the parent committed one or more predicate acts or omissions and that termination is in the child’s best interest. ... We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that D.F. and K.T. committed the predicate acts enumerated in sections ... 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination of D.F.’s and K.T.’s parental rights is in the best interest of Kari and Kate.

Evidence that children stayed with a caregiver with a history of drug use and were later found filthy and improperly dressed after their parent evaded removal can support termination under subsections (b)(1)(D) and (E).

in the Interest of A.L.A., N.B.A., and J.R.R., Children · filed 2021-09-22(b)(1)(D), (E)

Considering the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish that Appellant violated subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes a listed ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of L.S., a Child · filed 2022-09-28(b)

The Family Code permits a court to order termination of parental rights if the petitioner establishes one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (1) of the statute and also proves that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. ... We agree with counsel’s evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Section 161.001(b)(1).

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes conduct endangering a child’s well-being and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of L.T., T.G., M.G., D.G., M.J., J.J., Children · filed 2022-10-27(b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

The record contains legally and factually sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that Mother endangered the Children by her conduct and that termination was in the Children’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a predicate ground, such as an endangering course of conduct, and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E.T., a Child · filed 2022-11-23(b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

The record contains legally and factually sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that Father’s course of conduct endangered Emily’s well-being and that termination was in Emily’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing proof of a listed statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of E.M.O., a Child · filed 2022-12-28(b)

In a suit to terminate a parent’s rights to a child, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the parent’s acts or omissions met one or more of the grounds for involuntary termination listed in section 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code and (2) terminating the parent’s rights is in the best interest of the child. ... The record conclusively establishes that, at trial, the Department did not seek termination of Dad’s parental rights, and the trial court did not find that Dad’s conduct met any of the statutory grounds for termination.

Section 161.001 requires both an enumerated statutory ground and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

D. R. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2023-04-27(b)

“Section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code requires two findings to support termination of a parent’s legal rights: (1) the parent’s acts or omissions must satisfy an enumerated statutory ground for termination; and (2) termination must be in the child’s best interest.”

Section 161.001(b) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes condition or conduct endangerment and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of J.C. v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-06-15(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

Given the evidence presented at trial through witnesses and all exhibits admitted, we hold a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother committed a predicate act under subsections D and E. We further hold that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b) requires at least one predicate ground and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of H.P., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-07-06(b)

Section 161.001(b) of the Texas Family Code authorizes courts to order the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship when two things are proven: (1) predicate grounds for terminating parental rights; and (2) finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001(b) supports termination when the evidence establishes a listed ground for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest.

In the Interest of A.F., S.F., G.F., and L.B. v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-04-04(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O); (b)(2)

Ample ... evidence was admitted in the trial to support the trial court’s predicate findings under subsections (D), (E), (N), and (O), and to support its best interest finding under subsection 161.001(b)(2).

Section 161.001(b) requires sufficient evidence of a ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of X.R. and X.A., Children v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-06-10(b)(1)(D), (E); (b)(2)

Based on this record, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that grounds for termination existed and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in X.R.’s and X.A.’s best interest.

Section 161.001 requires both an enumerated statutory ground for termination and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

J. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2024-07-31(b)

“Section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code requires two findings to support termination of a parent’s legal rights: (1) the parent’s acts or omissions must satisfy an enumerated statutory ground for termination; and (2) termination must be in the children’s best interest.”

Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed parental act and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of A.B., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-02-06(b)

To terminate one’s parental rights, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1)(A)–(V), and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 161.001 permits termination when sufficient evidence supports an endangerment ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of I.S. v. the State of Texas · filed 2026-04-30(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

Based on the record before us, we conclude the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights based on the predicate endangerment findings under subsections D and E, and termination was in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes endangering conditions or conduct and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of L.D.M.W. v. the State of Texas · filed 2026-05-07(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father committed the predicate acts enumerated in sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination of Father’s parental rights is in James’s best interest.

Section 161.001 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes an endangerment ground and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of Z.S., Z.S., M.S. III, Children v. the State of Texas · filed 2026-05-21(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that Mother and Father knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger them and engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangers them. ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) permit termination when sufficient evidence establishes endangering conditions or conduct.

In the Interest of I.G., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2026-06-16(b)(1)(D), (E)

Having found that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under subsections 161.001(b)(1) (D) and (E), we need not address issues two and three challenging the trial court’s findings under subsections 161.001(b)(1) (P) and (Q).

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires legally sufficient evidence that a parent failed to support the child according to the parent's ability for a period of one year.

Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter · filed 2015-04-08(1)(F)

We hold that ... no legally sufficient evidence exists to support the ... trial court's finding that Lydia failed to support her child ... in accordance with her ability for a period of one year.

Section 161.001(1)(A) permits termination when a parent voluntarily leaves a child with a nonparent and expresses an intent not to return; conflicting evidence on those elements presents a fact issue for trial.

Dennis Cornelison, Et Ux. v. Newbury · filed 1996-10-25(1)(A)

Because we must accept all evidence in the nonmovant’s favor as true, we find that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ms. Newbury voluntarily left her child with the Comelisons and expressed an intent not to return.

Section 161.001(1)(C) permits termination when a parent voluntarily leaves a child with another without adequate support for at least six months, if termination is in the child's best interests.

In the Interest of B.T. · filed 1997-04-23(1)(C)

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to produce in the mind of the jury a firm belief that Thomas voluntarily left B.T. in the possession of the Department without providing adequate support and remained away for at least six months.

Section 161.001(1)(F) makes a parent's failure to support a child according to ability for one year ending within six months before the petition a ground for termination.

Brewer v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services · filed 1997-07-24(1)(F)

Nor do we believe the error was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause rendition of an improper judgment because it was undisputed in the evidence that Brewer failed to support his children in accordance with his ability during the year ending within six months of the date the Department filed its petition--a pleaded ground of misconduct that would justify termination.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires proof that a parent failed to support the child according to the parent's ability for a one-year period ending within six months of the petition; support cannot be presumed possible during incarceration.

Roderick v. Billy Ray Tabor and Glenda Jane Tabor · filed 1999-03-11(1)(F)

Conduct described under section 161.001(1)(F) of the Texas Family Code requires that the parent: (1) fail to support the child in accordance with his ability; (2) during a period of one year ending within six months of the filing of the petition. ... The Tabors provided no evidence tending to prove that she could support M.R. while she was incarcerated.

Section 161.001(1)(C) requires a parent to remain away from the child for six consecutive months without providing adequate support.

In Interest of DLN · filed 1997-12-23(1)(C)

Thus, because a parent should not face a termination on this ground until the minimum time-period of six months has passed, we believe the legislature intended that the six month time-period consist of six consecutive months.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires evidence that a parent had the ability to support the child but failed to do so; nonpayment alone is insufficient.

In Re JMT · filed 1999-12-01(1)(F)

Evidence of failure to pay alone is not adequate to support a violation of the statute. There must be some evidence of ability to support, and that the support was not provided.

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination when a parent fails to support a child according to the parent’s ability for one year ending within six months before the petition is filed.

In the Interest of J.M.T. · filed 1999-12-01(1)(F)

In considering the evidence in a light which supports the finding made by the trier of fact, we conclude that there tv as more than a scintilla of evidence that Thomas did not pay child support according to his ability for a period of twelve months ending within six months prior to the date of filing the petition.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires proof that a parent failed to support the child and had the ability to contribute for twelve consecutive months.

In Re MANM · filed 2002-02-06(1)(F)

To terminate parental rights on non-support grounds, the evidence must establish that the parent failed to support the child for twelve consecutive months and had the ability to contribute to the support of the child for twelve consecutive months. ... Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the judgment, we hold there is legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's non-support finding.

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination for failure to support a child when the parent had the ability to contribute support for twelve consecutive months but did not.

in the Interest of M.A.N.M., a Child · filed 2002-02-06(1)(F)

To terminate parental rights on non-support grounds, the evidence must establish that the parent failed to support the child for twelve consecutive months and had the ability to contribute to the support of the child for twelve consecutive months. ... Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the judgment, we hold there is legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s non-support finding. Furthermore, we hold factually sufficient evidence was presented to produce in the mind of the trial judge a “firm belief or conviction” that Ramirez had the ability to provide support to M.A.N.M.

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to support the children according to the parent's ability for the required period.

in the Interest of B. L. W. and R. S. W., Childern · filed 2002-05-16(1)(F)

The preceding constitutes legally sufficient evidence upon which a trial court could hold that Daryla clearly and convincingly failed to support her children as contemplated by §161.001(1)(F) of the Texas Family Code.

Section 161.001(1)(A) requires proof that a parent expressed an intent not to return; merely having that intent is insufficient.

in the Interest of S. G., a Child · filed 2004-01-27(1)(A)

Even if the jury considered that Ashley “had an intent not to return,” having the intent and expressing that intent are not synonymous.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires the person seeking termination for failure to support to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent had the ability to pay during each month of a consecutive twelve-month period.

Morris v. Michelle Christine Barnes and Christopher Kent Barnes · filed 2004-04-15(1)(F)

The ability to pay support must exist each month during the twelve-month period, and the burden is on the person seeking termination to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person had the ability to pay during each of the months.

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination when a parent fails to support a child according to the parent’s ability for one year ending within six months before the petition is filed.

Fox v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services · filed 2004-08-26(1)(F)

A parent must support the child in accordance with his ability. Id. § 161.001(1)(F). ... We conclude that, even accepting appellant’s testimony as true, the evidence is clear and convincing that he failed to support A.F. in accordance with his ability.

Section 161.001(1)(A) requires proof that a parent expressed an intent not to return; merely having that intent is insufficient.

Leal v. State · filed 2005-04-11(1)(A)

Even if the jury considered that Ashley “had an intent not to return,” having the intent and expressing that intent are not synonymous. ... Having found that there was no direct evidence that each natural parent expressed an “intent not to return,” we conclude the evidence in its entirety is legally insufficient to support the jury verdict that the natural parents expressed an intent not to return.

A parent's failure to support children according to ability during the required one-year period can support termination even if the parent begins paying after the petition is filed.

in the Interest of E.A.G. and A.K.G. · filed 2005-05-05(1)(F)

As a direct result of his criminal behavior, Goff provided no financial support for the year before the filing of the petition. Although the appellant provided modest financial support after the filing of the petition, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that a few hundred dollars is not adequate support for two children.

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination when a parent fails to support a child according to the parent's ability for twelve consecutive months ending within six months before the petition is filed.

In Re RM · filed 2005-12-06(1)(F)

Section 161.001(1)(F) allows involuntary termination where the parent has failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition. ... One year means twelve consecutive months, and the ability to pay support must exist each month during the twelve-month period. ... Accordingly, we hold termination was proper under Section 161.001(1)(F).

Subsection (1)(F) permits termination when a parent fails to support a child according to the parent’s ability for twelve consecutive months ending within six months before the petition is filed.

In the Interest of R.M., a Child · filed 2005-12-06(1)(F)

This evidence, when combined with the fact McCarty never sent any money or other support to the Mosleys, is legally sufficient proof McCarty failed to provide for R.M. according to his ability. Accordingly, we hold termination was proper under Section 161.001(1)(F).

Section 161.001(1)(F) allows failure to support a child to serve as a predicate for termination; youth and the absence of a support order do not excuse that failure.

In Re KAH · filed 2006-06-27(1)(F)

Thus, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding of a predicate act under section 161.001(1)(F).

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination for failure to support a child according to the parent's ability during the specified one-year period; youth and the absence of a support order do not excuse that failure.

In the Interest of K.A.H. · filed 2006-06-27(1)(F)

Father cites us to no authority, and we have found none, excusing the failure to support one’s child for reasons of youth or the absence of a court order to pay. ... Thus, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of a predicate act under section 161.001(1)(F).

Section 161.001(1)(A)'s intent-not-to-return ground is not established when a parent leaves a child with prospective adoptive parents and then exercises a promised right to change her mind.

In Re Mata · filed 2006-08-18(1)(A)

As for the claim that she allowed the Gonzalezes to take the child with an intent not to return, that argument ignores the Gonzalezes’ admission that she was promised she could change her mind, which is exactly what she did.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires the petitioner to prove that the parent failed to support the child according to the parent's ability; inability to pay is not an affirmative defense.

In Re DSP · filed 2006-12-07(1)(F)

Requiring a parent at risk of losing her parental rights to present evidence of her inability to pay for the purpose of either (1) asserting an affirmative defense or (2) overcoming a child support order's implied finding of ability to pay, wrongfully shifts the burden of proving ability to pay to the parent and excuses the movant in the termination proceeding from the burden of proving that the parent failed to support in accordance with the parent's ability.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires the party seeking termination for failure to support to prove the parent’s ability to pay; a child support order does not shift that burden to the parent.

in the Interest of D.S.P. and H.R.P., Children · filed 2006-12-07(1)(F)

Furthermore, while a child support order does contain an implied finding that the obligor has the ability to pay the support, we conclude that this matter should not be afforded any relevance in a termination proceeding involving section 161.001(1)(F). Requiring a parent at risk of losing her parental rights to present evidence of her inability to pay for the purpose of either (1) asserting an affirmative defense or (2) overcoming a child support order’s implied finding of ability to pay, wrongfully shifts the burden of proving ability to pay to the parent and excuses the movant in the termination proceeding from the burden of proving that the parent failed to support in accordance with the parent’s ability.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent had the ability to support the child during each month of the relevant twelve-month period.

In Re EME · filed 2007-03-08(1)(F)

To the contrary, Section 161.001(1)(F) squarely places the burden to prove ability to pay on the petitioner.

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires the petitioner to prove the parent had the ability to pay support during each month of the relevant twelve-month period.

In the Interest of E.M.E., a Child · filed 2007-03-08(1)(F)

To the contrary, Section 161.001(1)(F) squarely places the burden to prove ability to pay on the petitioner.

Section 161.001(1)(C) permits termination when a parent leaves a child with another without adequate support and remains away for at least six consecutive months.

WIlliams v. State · filed 2007-02-08(1)(C)

Thus, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(1)(C).

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires proof that the parent could pay support during each month of the relevant twelve-month period.

in the Interest of A.T.C., a Child · filed 2008-11-14(1)(F)

The one-year period means twelve consecutive months and there must be proof the parent had the ability to pay support during each month of that twelve-month period.

Section 161.001(1)(C) permits termination when a parent leaves a child with another without adequate support and remains away for at least six consecutive months.

Meredith L. Wilkins, Sr. v. Meredith L. Wilkins, Jr. · filed 2008-12-12(1)(C)

The evidence is clear and convincing that M.C. voluntarily left A.T.C. in W.E.W.’s possession without providing adequate support and that M.C. remained away for a period of six consecutive months. Thus, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(1)(C).

Section 161.001(1)(C) permits termination when a parent leaves a child with another without adequate support and remains away for at least six consecutive months.

in the Interest of A.T.C., a Child · filed 2008-12-12(1)(C)

Thus, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(1)(C).

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires clear and convincing proof that the parent could pay support in each of twelve consecutive months; a child-support order alone does not prove that ability.

In Re NAF · filed 2009-02-11(1)(F)

Thus, a child-support order is no evidence of Robert's ability to pay support for the twelve consecutive months required by subsection 161.001(1)(F).

Section 161.001(1)(F) requires clear and convincing proof of the parent’s ability to pay support during each of twelve consecutive months; a child-support order alone does not prove that ability.

in the Interest of N.A.F., a Child · filed 2009-02-11(1)(F)

Thus, a child-support order is no evidence of Robert’s ability to pay support for the twelve consecutive months required by subsection 161.001(1)(F).

Section 161.001(1)(H) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent knew the mother was carrying his child and abandoned her during pregnancy, with the abandonment continuing after birth.

In Re DMF · filed 2009-04-16(1)(H)

Thus, the abandonment must be with knowledge and occur both during the pregnancy and after the birth; all elements are required.

Leaving children with their mother as required by a divorce decree is not voluntary leaving under Section 161.001(1)(C).

in the Interest of J. K. H. and B. D. M., Children · filed 2009-09-16(1)(c)

William did not voluntarily leave the children with the mother--the court ordered him to do so.

Section 161.001(1)(A) permits termination when a parent voluntarily leaves a child with another person and expresses an intent not to return, if termination is in the child's best interest.

In Re JAMR · filed 2010-01-11(1)(A)

After reviewing the evidence before us, we conclude the trial court's finding of voluntary abandonment under section 161.001(1)(A) is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Section 161.001(1)(A) permits termination when a parent voluntarily leaves a child with a nonparent and expresses an intent not to return, if termination is in the child’s best interest.

In the Interest of J.A.M.R. · filed 2010-01-11(1)(A)

After reviewing the evidence before us, we conclude the trial court’s finding of voluntary abandonment under section 161.001(1)(A) is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Section 161.001(1)(C) permits termination when a parent leaves a child with another without adequate support and remains away for at least six consecutive months.

in the Interest of J. R., a Child · filed 2010-02-03(1)(C)

The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support termination pursuant to Section 161.001(C).

Section 161.001(1)(F) permits termination when a parent provides no support during a qualifying twelve-month period despite having the ability to pay during some of those months.

In Re CL · filed 2010-09-16(1)(F)

However, even if appellant was unable to provide support during some of those months, that will not interrupt the running of the one-year period if he made no effort to pay during other months in which there is a clear ability to pay.