Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001

Law changed since H.B. 116 repealed former subsection (b)(1)(O) effective September 1, 2025; its service-plan ground and related subsection (d) defense apply only under the Act’s transition rule to older suits no longer pending in a trial court on that date.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s court-order requirement is satisfied when temporary orders direct a parent to comply with service plans and specify the actions necessary for the child’s return.

in the Interest of E.M., a Child · filed 2022-03-24(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to satisfy Subsection (O)’s court-order requirement, 17 and we thus conclude and hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s Subsection (O) finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete court-ordered steps for a child’s return after the child has spent at least nine months in Department conservatorship following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.C., J.L.M., and M.M., Minor Children · filed 2005-09-30(1)(O)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, a reasonable fact finder could have concluded that Shelley completely failed to maintain safe, appropriate housing for six to twelve months, obtain gainful employment, participate in individual counseling, participate in a psychological evaluation, cooperate with the Department, complete parenting classes, and submit to all requested urinalyses.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to regain a child who has been in Department conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.

In the Interest of T.T., A.T., D.D., A.D. and A.D. · filed 2007-05-17(1)(O)

Paragraph (0) of subsection 161.001(1) provides that one basis for establishing the parental-conduct prong required for termination of parental rights is that a parent “failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the [Department] for not less than nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O) (Vernon Supp.2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete court-ordered steps to regain a child who has been in Department custody for at least nine months after removal for abuse or neglect; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of I.G. and R.C. Jr., Children · filed 2015-11-25(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a parent to comply with a court order specifying the actions necessary to regain the children; ability to pay ordered child support does not excuse noncompliance.

in the Interest of A.Y., A.Y., B.R., A.R. and D.R., Minor Children · filed 2001-06-06(1)(O)

However, ability to pay is a factor under subsection (F). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(F) (Vernon Supp. 2001). Subsection (O) only requires that a parent violate a court order specifying the actions necessary to obtain the return of their children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) makes failure to comply with a court order specifying the steps needed to regain a child a ground for termination of parental rights.

In Re MCM · filed 2001-10-21(1)(O)

We begin by noting that the challenged ground for termination, i.e., violation of a court order that specifies the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child, is specifically provided for in the termination statute. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O) (Vernon Supp. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps needed to obtain the child’s return; termination on that ground is remedial rather than criminal punishment.

In the Interest of M.C.M. · filed 2001-06-21(1)(O)

We disagree. Violation of the trial court’s temporary orders in this case may be a ground for criminal contempt, but it is also a ground for termination of appellants’ parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps for a child's return after the child has spent at least nine months in Department conservatorship following removal for abuse or neglect.

Donald Perrett and Sharon Perrett v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services · filed 2002-06-21(1)(O)

We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the court's finding that Donald and Sharon's parental rights were terminated based on section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions necessary to regain a child in the department’s custody.

Wilson v. State · filed 2003-10-07(1)(O)

We conclude again that a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm conviction or belief that Wilson failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of her child, who had been in the temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with court-ordered steps for a child's return; a parent who knows those steps may be found noncompliant even without receiving a copy of the service plan.

in the Interest of M.B., a Child · filed 2004-12-14(1)(O)

While Donald may not have received a copy of the service plan, the record shows he was fully aware of what was expected of him under both the service plan and the temporary orders. ... In short, the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps required to regain a child removed for abuse or neglect and held in DPRS conservatorship for at least nine months.

in the Interest of J. A., a Child · filed 2005-07-13(1)(O)

On appeal, DPRS relies primarily on the fourth ground as the one for which there is factually sufficient evidence to support the decree. ... Giving appropriate deference to the court’s findings, we hold that the evidence is “such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State’s allegations.” ... Thus, the evidence is factually sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) provides a termination ground when a parent fails to follow a court order setting the steps to regain a child removed for abuse or neglect and kept in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

in the Interest of M. B., a Child · filed 2005-11-30(1)(O)

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Ron and Christina failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for them to obtain the return of a child who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires removal for abuse or neglect; removal based only on risk from a parent's history does not satisfy that requirement.

In Re SAP · filed 2005-06-22(1)(O)

At trial Noble unequivocally testified that S.A.P. was not removed for abuse or neglect by Scott or Rebecca, that S.A.P. was not abused or neglected by Scott or Rebecca, and that S.A.P. was removed only because of the risk because of Scott's and Rebecca's prior history. There is thus no evidence to support the application of subsection 161.001(1)(O) to this case, much less the jury's affirmative finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O)'s statutory period measures how long the children have been in the Department's conservatorship, rather than how long the parent has had to comply with a court order.

In the Interest of A.D. · filed 2006-06-29(1)(O)

Moreover, the statutory period under paragraph (O) relates to the amount of time the children have been in permanent or temporary managing conser-vatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and not to the amount of time required for compliance with a court ordered provision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with a court order specifying the steps needed to regain a child from the Department’s conservatorship.

in the Interest of S.A.C, a Child · filed 2006-08-03(1)(O)

Further, the record contains clear and convincing evidence that Christina failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan by not attending counseling regularly, not maintaining regular employment so that she could provide for S.A.C.’s needs, failing to pay child support, (footnote: 15) and failing to attend numerous Narcotics Anonymous meetings. This evidence is sufficient to produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation that Christina failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary for her to obtain S.A.C.’s return from the Department’s conservatorship. (footnote: 16) Accordingly, the evidence is factually sufficient to establish this ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and to support the trial court’s termination order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) provides no excuse exception for a parent's failure to comply with a court order specifying the actions necessary to regain a child.

In Re TNF · filed 2006-08-30(1)(O)

Brandon presents no authority for his novel excuse argument, and the statute itself does not make a provision for excuses. See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(O) (Vernon Supp.2006) (providing as termination ground parent's failure to comply with court order). We thus agree with the Department that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that Brandon failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of the child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) makes failure to comply with a court order specifying the steps for a child’s return a termination ground and provides no exception for excuses.

In the Interest of T.N.F. · filed 2006-08-30(1)(O)

Brandon presents no authority for his novel excuse argument, and the statute itself does not make a provision for excuses.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with court-ordered requirements for the child's return, despite recent efforts to comply.

Shaw v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2006-08-31(1)(O)

Based on this record, there was both legally and factually sufficient evidence on which the trial court could find that, despite her recent efforts, Shaw had failed to comply with the court orders that established requirements for C.O.'s return by failing to complete the anger management or protective parenting classes and by failing to submit to Department-ordered drug testing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) provides a ground for termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps needed to regain children removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of V.A., V.A., and V.A., Minor Children · filed 2007-02-01(1)(O)

Thus, the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings that appellant committed acts enumerated in section 161.001(1)(O) of the family code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions required to regain children removed for abuse or neglect and held in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

In Re CDB · filed 2007-03-23(1)(O)

Considering the evidence in favor of the judgment, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support termination under section 161.001(1)(O). It is undisputed Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the children, who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of their removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps to regain children removed for abuse or neglect and placed in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

In the Interest of C.D.B. · filed 2007-03-23(1)(O)

Considering the evidence in favor of the judgment, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support termination under section 161.001(1X0). It is undisputed Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the children, who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of their removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out the steps for a child's return after at least nine months in state care following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of G.C.F., a Child · filed 2007-04-05(1)(O)

Question 7 asked whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Fabian failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the return of G.C.F., who had been in the managing conservatorship of TDFPS for not less than nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent for abuse or neglect. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O). ... In light of this testimony, we hold that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on this question and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by submitting this question to the jury.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to regain the child.

Ian Mikowski and Toni English v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2007-10-18(1)(O)

Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the section 161.001(1)(O) finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires the child to have been in the Department’s conservatorship for at least nine months before parental rights may be terminated on that ground.

in the Interest of A.R., Children · filed 2007-11-28(1)(O)

To terminate Rodriguez's parental rights under section 161.001(1)(O), the Department was required to establish that the child in question had been in the Department's conservatorship for not less than nine months.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (1)(O), evidence of an immediate danger to a child’s physical health or safety can support a finding that the child was removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of M.L.J., a Child · filed 2008-05-01(1)(O)

Considering the appropriate standards of review, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s section 161.001(1)(O) termination finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps required for a child's return; transportation and scheduling difficulties do not excuse noncompliance.

In Re CR · filed 2008-05-07(1)(O)

However, section 161.001(1)(O) does not "make a provision for excuses" for Davis's failure to comply with the trial court's order. ... Applying the appropriate standards of review, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding Davis's parental rights should be terminated under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Termination under subsection (1)(O) requires clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect.

In the Interest of A.A.A. · filed 2008-06-26(1)(O)

Thus, in our sufficiency review of the trial court’s finding that Hurst engaged in conduct pursuant to subsection 161.001(l)(O), we must consider whether DFPS proved by clear and convincing evidence that A.A.A. was removed under Chapter 262 for Hurst’s abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection 161.001(1)(O) requires clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed under Chapter 262 for the parent's abuse or neglect.

In Re AAA · filed 2008-08-19(1)(O)

Thus, in our sufficiency review of the trial court's finding that Hurst engaged in conduct pursuant to subsection 161.001(1)( O ), we must consider whether DFPS proved by clear and convincing evidence that A.A.A. was removed under Chapter 262 for Hurst's abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a court order specifying the actions a parent must take to obtain the child’s return before noncompliance can support termination.

in the Interest of B.L.R.P., a Child · filed 2008-10-16(1)(O)

Because there are no court orders specifically establishing the actions necessary for W.B. to obtain the return of the child, written or otherwise, the Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence any grounds enumerated under subsection (1) of § 161.001 to support termination of W.B.’s parental rights to B.L.R.P.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a court order specifying the actions a parent must take to regain the child before failure to comply can support termination.

In Re BLRP · filed 2008-10-16(1)(O)

Because there are no court orders specifically establishing the actions necessary for W.B. to obtain the return of the child, written or otherwise, the Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence any grounds enumerated under subsection (1) of § 161.001 to support termination of W.B.'s parental rights to B.L.R.P.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent’s failure to complete a court-ordered service plan materially violates the order.

Liu v. Department of Family & Protective Services · filed 2008-11-26(1)(O)

In light of these facts, we hold that Sally’s failure to successfully complete the terms of her service plan, constitutes a material violation of the court’s order sufficient to support a finding for termination under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered plan for the child's return.

In Re CMC · filed 2008-12-18(O)

In light of the entire record, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support the court's finding under section 161.001(O) because a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Latanya failed to comply with the provisions of the court-ordered plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed from the parent for abuse or neglect; failure to comply with a court order alone does not support termination.

Department of Family and Protective Services v. Silva · filed 2009-02-05(1)(O)

In sum, there is no evidence that DFPS had removed the child from Silva under Chapter 262 based on any alleged neglect of the child by Silva. ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting Silva's directed verdict as to the termination of his parental rights under section 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the parent who failed to comply with a court order to be the parent whose abuse or neglect caused the child's removal.

In Re SN · filed 2009-03-05(1)(O)

With the foregoing principles in mind, we conclude that subsection (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect of the child warranted the child's removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the parent who failed to comply with a court order to be the parent whose abuse or neglect caused the child’s removal.

in the Interest of S.N., S.M.N., and D.A.N., Children · filed 2009-03-05(1)(O)

With the foregoing principles in mind, we conclude that subsection (0) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect of the child warranted the child’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with court-ordered reunification requirements, even if the parent completes other parts of the service plan or offers excuses.

In Re JS · filed 2009-06-11(1)(O)

Section 161.001(1)(O) simply provides that a parent's rights may be terminated if the parent "failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child." It does not quantify any particular number of provisions of the family service plan that a parent must not achieve in order for the parental rights to be terminated or the degree of a parent's conduct that will be deemed to be a failure to achieve a particular requirement of the plan. The provision also does not encompass an evaluation of a parent's partial achievement of plan requirements to determine whether or not the parent failed to comply with the plan. Lastly, Section 161.001(1)(O) does not "make a provision for excuses" for the parent's failure to comply with the family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination for failure to meet court-ordered service plan requirements even when the parent meets other requirements or offers excuses.

in the Interest of J.S. and A.S., Children · filed 2009-06-11(1)(O)

It does not quantify any particular number of provisions of the family service plan that a parent must not achieve in order for the parental rights to be terminated or the degree of a parent’s conduct that will be deemed to be a failure to achieve a particular requirement of the plan. The provision also does not encompass an evaluation of a parent’s partial achievement of plan requirements to determine whether or not the parent failed to comply with the plan. Lastly, Section 161.001(l)(O) does not “make a provision for excuses” for the parent’s failure to comply with the family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order requiring compliance with a service plan, even though the plan itself is not a court order.

In Re ESC · filed 2009-06-15(1)(O)

Although the service plan is not itself a court order, the trial court's temporary order established that compliance with the requirements of the service plan was an action necessary to obtain return of the children. We conclude the temporary order complied with section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order requiring compliance with a service plan, even though the plan itself is not a court order.

In the Interest of E.S.C. · filed 2009-06-15(1)(O)

Although the service plan is not itself a court order, the trial court's temporary order established that compliance with the requirements of the service plan was an action necessary to obtain return of the children. We conclude the temporary order complied with section 161.001(1X0).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed because of abuse or neglect of that child; removal based on risk alone does not suffice.

Mann v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2009-09-17(1)(O)

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or conviction that C.M. was removed due to abuse or neglect by appellant, as required to support termination under section 161.001(1)(O). Consequently, we hold that the evidence is legally insufficient to support termination of appellant's parental rights to C.M. under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed for abuse or neglect, the Department held conservatorship for at least nine months, a court order specified the steps for the child’s return, and the parent failed to comply with that order.

in the Interest of C.L., and I.L., Children · filed 2009-10-14(1)(O)

To establish this predicate ground for termination, the Department must prove: (1) the child was removed from the parent because of abuse or neglect; (2) the Department has been the permanent or temporary managing conservator of the child for at least nine months; (3) a court order “specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child”; and (4) the parent failed to comply with that order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed for abuse or neglect, the Department held managing conservatorship for at least nine months, a court order specified the steps for the child's return, and the parent failed to comply with that order.

In Re CL · filed 2009-11-04(1)(O)

To establish this predicate ground for termination, the Department must prove: (1) the child was removed from the parent because of abuse or neglect; (2) the Department has been the permanent or temporary managing conservator of the child for at least nine months; (3) a court order "specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child"; and (4) the parent failed to comply with that order. ... Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, we hold that the evidence is legally insufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a child was removed for abuse or neglect and the parent failed to comply with court orders setting the actions necessary for the child’s return.

in the Interest of M.G. · filed 2009-11-17(1)(O)

Based on the foregoing evidence, a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that appellant failed to comply with court orders establishing actions necessary for the return of M.G. from State custody.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits an order approving and adopting a family service plan to establish the actions a parent must take to regain custody.

in the Interest of K.L.A.C., D.D.C., and S.L.H.C · filed 2010-01-21(1)(O)

Although the family service plan is not a court order itself, the trial court’s order approving and adopting the family service plan established that compliance with the requirements of the family service plan was an action necessary for appellant to obtain the return of her children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires full compliance with the court-ordered family services plan; an excuse for noncompliance bears on the child's best interests rather than whether the statutory ground is met.

In Re MCG · filed 2010-12-02(1)(O)

Further, the Family Code does not provide for excuses for failure to comply in assessing a statutory violation. ... The Family Code does not provide for substantial compliance with a family services plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires full compliance with a court-ordered family services plan; substantial compliance does not satisfy it.

in the Interest of M.C.G., a Child · filed 2010-12-02(1)(O)

The Family Code does not provide for substantial compliance with a family services plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s failure to complete court-ordered service plan tasks can establish noncompliance under section 161.001(1)(O).

Enriquez v. State · filed 2010-12-21(1)(O)

After viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to form a firm belief or conviction that V.S. failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the parent who failed to comply with a court order to be the same parent whose abuse or neglect caused the child’s removal.

in the Interest of M.N., G.R. IV, and G. R., Children · filed 2011-03-17(1)(O)

It is not necessary that the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect warranted the child’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps required to obtain the return of a child.

in the Interest of T.C., T.B. Jr., T.B. and T.B., Children · filed 2011-04-14(1)(O)

Thus, there was clear and convincing evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief that the mother failed to comply with the provisions of the trial court’s earlier order establishing the actions necessary for the mother to obtain the return of her children. The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a court-ordered plan after a child has been in Department conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of E.M.C.G., a Child · filed 2011-05-25(1)(O)

Griffith next contends that termination under section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the children were removed from their mother for abuse or neglect and that “the record is unclear” whether abuse or neglect was proven. The judgment recites the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that the child was in the Department’s conservatorship “as a result of the child’s removal from the parent . . . for the abuse or neglect of the child.” Griffith does not cite to any evidence that would contradict this finding, and the finding is consistent with the Department’s affidavit accompanying the original petition.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not excuse a parent’s failure to comply with a court order setting out the actions required to regain a child.

M.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2011-06-16(1)(O)

We note that the Family Code does not excuse a failure to comply in assessing whether a violation of section 161.001(1)(O) has occurred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to regain children removed for abuse or neglect after at least nine months in state care.

in the Interest of S.P. and S.M.J., Children · filed 2011-08-18(1)(O)

The record shows, and the parents admitted, that they did not fully comply with the court-ordered service plan as required. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations that each parent failed to comply with the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to regain a child; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of T.N.C., C.M.C., and J.P.C., Minor Children · filed 2011-11-03(1)(O)

In addition, substantial compliance is not enough to avoid a termination finding under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps to regain a child removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.W.B., Minor Child · filed 2012-03-27(1)(O)

Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for Mother to obtain the return of A.W.B.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (1)(O), failure to comply with four requirements of a court-ordered family service plan can support termination even if the parent complied with other requirements.

in the Interest of R.B. and E.H.B., Minor Children · filed 2012-04-11(1)(O)

However, that Elvia M. failed to comply with four of the requirements is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete the court-ordered actions required to obtain the return of her children, even if she attempted to complete most of them.

in the Interest of D.J.H. and D.A.H., Children · filed 2012-05-09(1)(O)

Although it is apparent that Kathy attempted to complete most of the service plan’s requirements and that she wanted to be reunited with her sons, we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Kathy violated section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires completion of every court-ordered service plan requirement; substantial compliance or an excuse for noncompliance does not prevent termination.

in the Interest of R.N.W. and T.M.W., Children · filed 2012-06-06(1)(O)

We do not consider “substantial compliance” to be the same as completion for purposes of subsection (O) of the Family Code, nor does that subsection provide for excuses for failure to complete court ordered services.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the parent who failed to comply with a court order to be the parent whose abuse or neglect caused the child’s removal.

in the Interest of D.R.A. and A.F., Children · filed 2012-06-15(1)(O)

However, subsection (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect of the child warranted the child’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not allow excuses for failure to comply with court-ordered services; those excuses are considered when deciding the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of F. H. T., a Child · filed 2012-06-21(1)(O)

To the contrary, the family code does not provide for or allow excuses for failure to comply with court-ordered services in a termination case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent’s continued cocaine use and failure to perform service plan tasks support a finding of noncompliance with a court order.

in the Interest of J.J.D. and A.M.C., Children · filed 2012-06-21(1)(O)

The record shows that Mother continued to use cocaine during the court-ordered service plan and failed to comply with the tasks specified in the plan. Accordingly, based on our review of the record and giving appropriate deference to the jury’s factfindings, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a reasonable trier of fact’s firm belief or conviction that Mother failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when evidence sufficiently establishes the statutory ground.

in the Interest of A.W.C. and G.A.C., Children · filed 2012-07-12(1)(O)

Therefore, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Section 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires full compliance with a court order specifying the steps needed to regain a child; substantial compliance does not suffice.

in the Interest of K.H., a Child · filed 2012-07-12(1)(O)

The statute, however, does not provide for substantial compliance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires full compliance with a court order specifying the steps necessary to regain a child; substantial compliance does not suffice.

in the Interest of I.G., I.G. and I.G., Children · filed 2012-10-15(1)(O)

Based on David‘s admission that he failed to fully comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for David to obtain the return of his children, which is supported by record evidence, we conclude that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury‘s finding under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require a parent to have caused the child’s removal.

Salazar v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2013-07-19(1)(O)

However, the Legislature did not scribe into subparagraph (O) a distinction between an offending parent and a non-offending parent. This Court declines to read such a requirement into section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a court order that specifically establishes the actions a parent must take to regain a child before termination can be upheld for failure to comply.

in the Interest of M.D.C., a Child · filed 2013-08-27(1)(O)

A termination finding under subsection (O) cannot be upheld where there is no court order that specifically establishes the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) can support termination for failure to comply with court-ordered services even when the children were physically removed from the other parent, if its other requirements are met.

in the Interest of A.D.C. and J.D.C., Children · filed 2013-10-03(1)(O)

Contrary to Father’s statement that the law is “silent” about whether a parent from whom a child is not physically removed may face termination under subsection (O), this court and many of our sister intermediate appellate courts have held that a parent from whom children are not physically removed must comply with court-ordered services and that subsection (O) may operate as a ground for termination for such a parent so long as the other requirements under subsection (O) are fulfilled. ... Because Father falls within the purview of subsection (O) and because he does not contest the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the other requirements of subsection (O)—whether CPS maintained conservatorship for at least nine months, whether he complied with the court-ordered service plan, or whether the children were removed due to abuse or neglect—we conclude that the evidence was not legally or factually insufficient to support the jury’s finding that termination was supportable under subsection (O) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by submitting a question to the jury concerning that subsection.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) did not support termination of a father whose children were removed from their mother while he lived elsewhere.

R. J. O. v. the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2013-11-13(1)(O)

We also agree that the evidence does not support termination under section 161.001(1)(O). We therefore reform the trial court’s final decree to remove that statutory ground for termination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting the steps for a child’s return after the child has spent at least nine months in state care following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of S.E.C., a Child · filed 2014-01-30(1)(O)

The evidence showed that the father failed to complete the services and, thus, failed to comply with the trial court’s order. The evidence also showed that S.E.C. had been in the Department’s care for at least nine months and that S.E.C. had been removed from the parents due to abuse or neglect. Thus, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires compliance with the court order establishing actions for a child’s return; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of C.M.D. and H.M.A., Children · filed 2014-02-06(1)(O)

As this court has previously explained, subsection (O) of the statute is not satisfied by substantial compliance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when the Department has had managing conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect and the parent fails to comply with a court order setting the steps to regain the child.

in the Interest of A.D., a Child · filed 2014-07-31(1)(O)

Thus, under subsection (O), the Department must prove that (1) the Department has been the child’s temporary or permanent managing conservator for at least nine months; (2) the Department took custody of the child as a result of a removal from the parent for abuse or neglect; (3) a court issued an order establishing the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child; and (4) the parent did not comply with the court order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O)’s removal-for-abuse-or-neglect element was met even though prescription validity and actual harm were disputed.

in the Interest of A. S. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2014-07-31(1)(O)

Thus, we conclude that, without regard to whether the mother’s prescription for hydrocodone was valid or her use of the hydrocodone actually harmed her baby, A.S. was removed for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require an order to have a particular title; the order must direct the parent to perform specific acts and warn that failure to provide a safe environment within a reasonable time could result in termination.

in the Interest of K.N.D., a Child · filed 2014-08-14(1)(O)

The order need not bear a title stating that it is an order “to obtain return of a child”; rather, it will be sufficient under subsection (O) so long as it directs a parent to perform specific acts and advises the parent that failure to provide a safe environment within a reasonable time period could result in termination of her parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) provides no excuse for failing to comply with court-ordered steps for a child’s return after removal for abuse or neglect and at least nine months in Department conservatorship.

in the Interest of J.R.A.F. and P.F., Children · filed 2015-02-19(1)(O)

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not “make a provision for excuses” for the parent’s failure to comply with the court-ordered services. ... Consequently, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) permits failure to comply with a family service plan to serve as a ground for termination.

in the Interest of L.A.A., L.B.A., and K.S. · filed 2015-03-11(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the challenged elements of subsection 161.001(1)(O), failure to comply with the family service plan, as a predicate ground for termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete all court-ordered steps for regaining a child, even if the parent completes some of them.

in the Interest of C.C.C. and C.S.C., Children · filed 2015-03-12(1)(O)

Although the father did comply with some portions of the trial court’s order, the evidence, as detailed above, was undisputed that the father failed to comply with all of the provisions of the service plan as ordered by the trial court. Thus, there was clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of the children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out actions required to regain custody after a child has been removed for abuse or neglect for at least nine months.

L. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2015-04-24(1)(O)

Jane’s recent progress does not mean that she fully complied with the court’s orders issued following John’s removal due to neglect. We overrule Jane’s first issue on appeal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require a court to consider a parent’s excuses for failing to complete court-ordered services.

in the Interest of G.R. and T.R. · filed 2015-05-14(1)(O)

While the Father made a number of excuses for his failure to complete the services, section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the court to consider excuses for a parent’s failure to comply with the court-ordered services.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not excuse a parent’s failure to complete court-ordered services.

in the Interest of M.H. and Z.H. · filed 2015-08-13(1)(O)

While the mother made a number of excuses for her failure to complete the services, section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the court to consider excuses for a parent’s failure to comply with the court-ordered services. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s finding with regard to subsection 161.001(1)(O) is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) requires a court order identifying the actions necessary to obtain the child’s return; an order warning that failure to comply may terminate parental rights satisfies the warning requirement.

in the Interest of C.Y., the Child · filed 2015-10-22(b)(1)(O)

Thus, this order notified Appellant that the actions listed in the order were necessary to obtain C.Y.’s return and that failure to fully comply with the orders could result in the termination of his parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a court order specifying the actions a parent must take to regain a child; a family service plan that is not incorporated into an order does not suffice.

in the Interest of Z.B. and Z.B., Children · filed 2016-07-12(b)(1)(O)

A family service plan that is not incorporated in a court order does not suffice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s nine-month conservatorship requirement may be established through the trial court’s judicial notice of its own appointment order in a bench trial.

in the Interest of S.W., a Child · filed 2016-10-06(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, we find that the record contained factually sufficient evidence establishing that Stephen was in the “temporary managing conservatorship of the Department . . . for not less than nine months” and overrule Dan’s factual sufficiency challenge to Ground O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Ground (O) requires an existing court order specifying the actions a parent must take to regain the child.

in the Interest of T.C.H., a Child · filed 2016-12-08(b)(1)(O)

As Rachel points out, before her parental rights may be terminated for failing to comply with the court’s order, an order must be in existence. ... Since both the order and service plan are in the record, this point of error is without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a court order specifying the actions needed to regain the child; a service plan not incorporated into a court order does not suffice.

in the Interest of T.C. and J.C., Children · filed 2018-06-12(b)(1)(O)

A family service plan that is not incorporated in a court order does not suffice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A family service plan made an order of the court satisfies ground (O)’s requirement for a court order specifying the actions needed to obtain the child’s return.

in the Interest of L.G., a Child · filed 2019-04-10(b)(1)(O)

Since the trial court made the FSP an order of the court, the FSP in this case qualified as a court order that established the actions necessary for Matt to obtain the return of the child, as required under ground (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For suits filed before subsection (d) took effect, subsection (b)(1)(O) requires compliance with every requirement of a court-ordered service plan; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of M.M., a Child · filed 2019-04-11(b)(1)(O)

Parents must comply with each requirement of a court-ordered service plan; complying merely substantially is not good enough to avoid termination under subsection (O). ... In light of the entire record, we hold that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief that both parents violated the subsection (O) ground and that the evidence thus factually suffices.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a court order specifying the tasks a parent must complete; tasks stated only in a family service plan cannot support termination.

in the Interest of C.R., A.R., and I.R., Children · filed 2019-04-16(b)(1)(O)

Because these five tasks were not specified in any court order, they cannot be used against the parents to terminate their rights under subparagraph O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A reunification order is sufficiently specific under subsection (b)(1)(O) when its terms tell the parent with certainty what duties must be performed.

in the Interest of D.K.J.J. AKA D.K.J.J., D.K.D.J. AKA D.K.D.J., D.D.J., Jr., D.Q.D.J., D.K.J.J., AKA B.B.B. Minor Child · filed 2019-06-13(b)(1)(O)

A trial court order referenced by section 161.001(b)(1)(O) that establishes the actions necessary for the parent to obtain return of a child in the Department’s custody is sufficiently specific when the terms for compliance are set forth with certainty so that the parent knows what duties and obligations have been imposed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A service plan can establish required actions under subsection (b)(1)(O) even if it phrases the tasks as requests, when the court order and plan together make them mandatory.

in the Interest of A.L.R., a Child · filed 2021-06-24(b)(1)(O)

Although some of the language used in the service plan could have been more authoritative and phrased as a command rather than a request, it was clear from the combined terms of the court order and the service plan that Appellant was required to complete the tasks and services set forth in the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to follow a service plan only when the plan specifies actions the parent is required to take.

in the Interest of A.L.R., a Child · filed 2022-06-17(b)(1)(O)

Subsection (O) authorizes termination for failure to comply with a family service plan only when that plan requires the parent to perform specific actions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires the court order specifying the actions needed for a child’s return to be sufficiently specific for the parent to comply.

in the Interest of A.I., a Child · filed 2022-09-22(b)(1)(O)

Because a trial court must necessarily decide that a court order is sufficiently specific for the parent to comply before terminating a parent’s rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O), a trial court cannot terminate parental rights for failure to comply without first considering the order’s specificity.