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Law changed since H.B. 116 repealed former subsection (b)(1)(O) effective September 1, 2025; its service-plan ground and related subsection (d) defense apply only under the Act’s transition rule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) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent failed to comply with court-ordered services while the child was in the Department’s care for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.

In the Interest of S.F., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-02-06(b)(1)(O)

Sufficient evidence supports the ground (O) finding, including undisputed testimony that S.F. remained in the Department’s care for over nine months, as well as evidence that Father repeatedly violated his service plan by testing positive for marijuana throughout the case, failing drug screens, and missing required ... tests despite the Department’s efforts to accommodate his work schedule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent materially fails to comply with a specifically established requirement of a court-ordered service plan.

R. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2025-01-31(b)(1)(O)

The district court could have reasonably found that Mother’s failure to drug test on numerous occasions and to test positive for methamphetamine near the end of the case were material violations of the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) requires a parent to plead and prove the defense to service plan noncompliance in the trial court; the parent cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.

In the Interest of A.E.J., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-02-12(d)

Because Father failed to plead and prove the subsection (d) defense in the trial court, we reject Father’s argument that subsection (d) precludes termination based on his failure to complete his service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete court-ordered services that sufficiently specify the actions required for the child’s return.

In the Interest of D.M., Jr., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-09-27(b)(1)(O)

Under the facts of this case, we conclude Father’s court-ordered services were sufficiently specific. It is undisputed that he did not complete any services. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires compliance with court-ordered services; substantial compliance does not count as completion, and excuses for noncompliance bear only on best interest.

in the Interest of T.L.R., Minor Child · filed 2012-09-13(1)(O)

But it is well settled that the family code does not provide for excuses for failure to complete court ordered services, nor does it consider “substantial compliance” to be the same as completion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires completion of court-ordered services; excuses and substantial compliance do not satisfy that requirement.

in the Interest of A.T.K., M.A.C., and S.A.C., the Children · filed 2012-09-27(1)(O)

It is well settled that the family code does not provide for excuses for failure to complete court-ordered services, nor does it consider “substantial compliance” to be the same as completion.

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; effort alone is insufficient.

in the Interest of J.C., J.C., Jr., J.C. III and S.C. · filed 2012-10-18(1)(O)

The trial judge could reasonably conclude that L.F. violated section 161.001(1)(O) by failing to comply with the trial court‟s order specifically establishing the actions necessary for L.F. to obtain the return of the children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed for abuse or neglect before parental rights may be terminated for failure to comply with a court order.

D. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2012-11-07(1)(O)

We agree that a child’s removal for “abuse or neglect” is a required element of Section 161.001(1)(O) and join a majority of other courts of appeal which have so held.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (1)(O), the Department may remove children from both parents by taking them from one parent’s possession and obtaining an order for substitute care after a full adversary hearing.

in the Interest of A.M.C., J.M.C. III, C.D.C. and H.D.C. · filed 2012-12-06(1)(O)

Here, the children were in Mother’s possession when the Department intervened; by taking the children into its possession and by obtaining an order for substitute care of the children after a full adversary hearing, the Department effectively removed the children from both parents.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of R. T., J. L., and E. Y., Children · filed 2013-02-07(1)(O)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to an affirmative finding under section 161.001(1)(O), we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the children were removed from I.T. due to neglect or abuse.

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 complete court-ordered actions required for a child’s return.

in the Interest of K.S. and C.D.S. · filed 2013-03-14(1)(O)

Considering the evidence under the respective standards of review, we conclude that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that L.S. failed to complete her family services plan and violated section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (1)(O), substantial but incomplete compliance with an order specifying the steps for a child's return is insufficient.

in Re N.C. and X.C., Children · filed 2013-02-13(1)(O)

Although L.E. made efforts to comply with the court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of her children, substantial yet incomplete compliance with the Department's service plan was insufficient to obtain the return of her children. Thus, we agree with counsel's evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under section 161.001(1)(O).

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 required to regain children removed for abuse or neglect and held in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

in the Interest of J.J.W. and M.S.S., Children · filed 2013-03-28(1)(O)

We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding made pursuant to Section 161.001(1)(O).

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 the court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of F.F., M.N., I.N., and G.N., Children · filed 2013-06-06(1)(O)

We find that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Frank and Brandy failed to comply with the provisions of the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) requires an order specifying the actions a parent must take to regain a child; a trial court may establish the order’s existence by judicially noticing its own record.

in the Interest of K.F., K.A.F., R.S.H., and R.G.H.Jr., Children · filed 2013-06-20(1)(O)

Because we may presume the trial court took judicial notice of its own records, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that the Department proved there is an order that specifically established the actions necessary for Harrison to obtain the return of her children.

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 court-ordered conditions for the child’s return.

in the Interest of K.A. and K.N.A.,Children · filed 2013-07-09(1)(O)

Therefore, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Humberto committed one of the statutory grounds for involuntary termination under section 161.001(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires compliance with a court-ordered service plan; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of J.C.H. A/K/A J.C.E. and E.C.H., Children · filed 2014-01-16(1)(O)

While we agree that the mother may have substantially complied with the family service plan, the legislature did not provide for substantial compliance in Section 161.001(1)(O) of the Family Code. Therefore, substantial compliance is not enough to avoid termination 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 service plan; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of R.E.T.R. and D.D.R., Jr., Children · filed 2013-12-10(1)(O)

Texas courts, including this court, have held that substantial compliance is not enough to avoid a termination finding under section 161.001(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) supports termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of L. C., M. C., J. E. S., Children · filed 2013-12-19(1)(O)

Because appellant’s argument does not raise a fact issue regarding ... whether she complied with the provision of the family service plans requiring her to refrain from using drugs, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a reasonable trier of fact’s firm belief that appellant failed to comply with her court-ordered service plans.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) does not allow substantial compliance with a court-ordered service plan or excuses for failing to complete it.

in the Interest of D.D., C.C., C.C., and C.C., Children · filed 2013-12-27(1)(O)

The Family Code does not provide for substantial compliance with a court- ordered service plan under subsection 161.001(1)(O), nor does subsection 161.001(1)(O) allow for excuses for failure to complete the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) supports termination when the evidence establishes its service-plan ground.

in the Interest of J.A.W. and E.M.W., Children · filed 2014-01-24(1)(O)

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.

Substantial compliance with a court-ordered service plan is insufficient to avoid termination under subsection (O).

in the Interest of N.M., a Child · filed 2014-02-21(1)(O)

In the eyes of the law, her substantial compliance is insufficient to defeat termination under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For subsection (1)(O), a child can be removed from a parent’s custody by an order naming the Department temporary managing conservator even when the child was staying with someone else.

Z. L. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2014-02-07(1)(O)

Although A.L. was staying with someone other than Zane at the time the Department filed its petition for temporary conservatorship, for purposes of section 161.001(1)(O), A.L. was removed from Zane’s custody by the trial court’s order naming the Department A.L.’s temporary managing conservator.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered service plan for the child’s return.

in the Interest of B.W., a Child · filed 2014-02-19(1)(O)

Having reviewed the evidence under the respective standards of review, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that T.Z. failed to comply with the provisions of her service plan as ordered by the court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan setting the steps required for the child’s return.

in the Interest of C. T., A/K/A B.B.T., a Child · filed 2014-02-20(1)(O)

The service plan required, in part, that K.T “participate in and complete a parenting course” and “refrain from any criminal activity.” K.T. did not complete a parenting course; and she was arrested for public intoxication, a class C misdemeanor, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.02 (West 2011), on April 16, 2013. The evidence was therefore legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under part (O) of the statute.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) supports termination when the evidence establishes that ground.

in the Interest of A.H. · filed 2014-04-10(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence supporting a termination finding under subsection (O) is both legally and factually sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to complete court-ordered steps for a child’s return; substantial compliance does not defeat that ground.

in the Interest of J.D.H., E.K.H., Z.H.H., Children · filed 2014-02-20(1)(O)

Initially, we observe that a claim of substantial compliance with a court order does not defeat a termination based upon subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires compliance with the court-ordered service plan; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of N.A., Minor Child · filed 2014-02-28(1)(O)

However, as we discussed above, partial or substantial compliance does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Whether a parent has complied enough with a court-ordered service plan to avoid termination under subsection (1)(O) is ordinarily a fact question.

in the Interest of S.M.R., G.J.R. and C.N.R., Children · filed 2014-06-06(1)(O)

But whether a parent has done enough under the family-service plan to defeat termination under subpart (O) is ordinarily a fact question.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Substantial compliance with a court-ordered family service plan does not prevent termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of A.R.B., C.L.B., C.L.B. Jr., and E.B., Children · filed 2014-06-26(1)(O)

Moreover, even substantial compliance with a family service plan is insufficient to avoid a termination finding under subsection O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) does not excuse a parent’s failure to complete court-ordered services based on the parent’s explanations for noncompliance.

In the Interest of S.Y., a Child · filed 2014-06-27(1)(O)

Regardless of these explanations, section 161.001(1)(O) does not “make a provision for excuses” for a parent’s failure to comply with the trial court’s order.

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; orders adopting a family service plan can satisfy that requirement.

in the Interest of C.N.S, and C.D.S., Children · filed 2014-08-07(1)(O)

Thus, the record establishes that the trial court signed more than one “court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child,” as required by section 161.001(a)(O).

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 not physically removed from that parent.

in the Interest of K.S., K.S. and G.S. · filed 2014-09-25(1)(O)

Subsection O may operate as a ground for termination when a parent from whom children are not physically removed fails to comply with court-ordered services.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires completion of every court-ordered service; substantial compliance and excuses for noncompliance do not satisfy it.

in the Interest of C.B., a Child · filed 2014-10-02(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.

Subsection (1)(O) treats failure to comply with a court order as sufficient without measuring the degree of noncompliance.

in the Interest of K.D.L. · filed 2014-11-07(1)(O)

Section 161.001(1)(O) “looks only for a parent’s failure to comply with a court order, without reference to [the] quantity of failure or degree of compliance.”

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 a child removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.J.E.M-B., a Child · filed 2014-11-07(1)(O)

In sum, under the applicable standards of review, the record evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that the Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the Child after his removal due to abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) does not recognize substantial compliance with a court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of J.H., a Child · filed 2014-10-02(1)(O)

The Family Code does not provide for substantial compliance with a court-ordered service plan under subsection 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Partial compliance with a court-ordered service plan is insufficient to avoid termination under Section 161.001(1)(O).

in the Interest of A.L. and D.L., Children · filed 2014-10-08(1)(O)

Lee’s compliance with some of the terms of the service plan was insufficient to avoid a finding of termination under Section 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The evidence legally and factually supported termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of B.J.E., a Child · filed 2014-11-14(1)(O)

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) supplies a ground for termination when a parent fails to follow a court order setting the steps to regain a child who has been in Department care for at least nine months after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of C.N.A., a Child · filed 2014-11-26(1)(O)

The Department produced 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 a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of C.N.A. ... The evidence also showed that C.N.A. had been in the Department’s care for at least nine months and that she had been removed from the mother 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.

The evidence supported termination under subsection (1)(O).

T. J. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2014-11-25(1)(O)

Therefore, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we conclude that the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that subsection (O) is a statutory ground that supports terminating Teresa’s parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to complete a court-ordered reunification plan, even if the parent substantially complies with it.

in the Interest of I.R., a Minor Child · filed 2014-12-09(1)(O)

Even substantial compliance with a family service plan is insufficient to avoid a termination finding under subsection O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) supports termination when a parent completes some family service plan requirements but fails to complete others and meet the plan’s goals.

in the Interest of D.R.F., a Child · filed 2015-04-20(1)(O)

In addition to not completing all of her tasks and services, it is apparent appellant has not met her goals of demonstrating the ability to (1) parent and protect D.R.F.; (2) provide basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; (3) use appropriate family and friends to obtain necessary support; and (4) protect the child from harm. We therefore conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that appellant failed to comply with the requirements of her service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A court order incorporating a service plan establishes the actions a parent must take to obtain the children’s return under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of A.L.W. and A.N.W., Minor Children · filed 2015-07-14(1)(O)

Because the status-hearing order is now part of the record, we conclude that Mother’s complaint that there was no court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the children is without merit.

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 and provides no exception for the parent's excuses.

in the Interest of R.E.Y., a Child · filed 2015-08-10(1)(O)

Richard admitted at trial he failed to comply with the requirements of his family service plan, and subsection (O) does not include a provision that excuses Richard’s failure to comply.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (1)(O), an order requiring completion of signed subsequent service plans makes the plans’ requirements part of the court-ordered services.

in the Interest of N.S.B., a Child · filed 2015-07-23(1)(O)

As such, we conclude that the March 6, 2013 trial court order required K.S. to complete the additional requirements contained in the April 8, 2013 and June 13, 2014 service plans, because both of these service plans were signed by K.S.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the Department to set deadlines for completing a service plan or wait until its family reunification target date before seeking termination.

in the Interest of B.S., a Minor Child · filed 2015-11-12(1)(O)

Appellant provides no authority supporting her argument that under section 161.001(1)(O), the Department is precluded “from seeking a termination prior to the ‘target date’ set for [a]ppellant’s compliance” or that the Department was required to provide deadlines for appellant’s completion of the goals. ... Thus, we conclude that appellant’s argument that she had fifty-seven more days to comply with the court’s order has no merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Substantial compliance with a court-ordered family service plan does not satisfy the plan-completion requirement for termination under subsection (b)(1)(O).

in the Interest of R.N. and Z.N., Children · filed 2015-09-11(b)(1)(O)

We have previously held that substantial compliance of a service plan does not equate to completion of the plan as required by the trial court’s order. ... Therefore, the trial court could have found by clear and convincing evidence that T.N. and M.H. failed to complete the family service plan ordered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits a termination finding when a parent fails to complete the requirements of a court-ordered family service plan.

in the Interest of M.A.B., IV, a Child · filed 2015-10-15(1)(O)

The evidence conclusively established that M.A.B. did not complete the requirements of his court-ordered family service plan. Accordingly, we hold that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding under subsection O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) allows a termination trial after the child has been in state custody for at least nine months; a service plan’s permanency target date does not delay the trial.

in the Interest of M.S., a Child · filed 2015-09-29(1)(O)

Also working against the mother’s contention, the Family Code allows a court to terminate a parent’s rights to her child if the child has been in the State’s custody for at least nine months and the State proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent failed to comply with a court order that specified what she had to do to get her child back. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(O). M.S. had been in the Department’s care for more than nine months before the trial began. Under the plain language of the statute, then, the trial court had the authority to try the case when it did.

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 for a child’s return; partial compliance with drug testing does not satisfy an extensive order.

K. G. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2015-11-09(1)(O)

Partial compliance with the court’s order on drug testing comes nowhere close to complying with the court’s extensive orders establishing the actions that Kevin needed to take to obtain the return of his children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Whether partial compliance with a court-ordered family service plan warrants termination under subsection (b)(1)(O) is ordinarily a fact question.

in the Interest of C.M. and C.F., Children · filed 2016-03-17(b)(1)(O)

Because the trial court’s ruling prevented the jury from weighing this evidence to determine whether Mother’s partial noncompliance warranted termination of her parental rights under Subsection (O), we conclude that the trial court’s ruling on this issue was erroneous.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out 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.

in the Interest of A.P.M. and A.M., Children · filed 2015-12-29(b)(1)(O)

We find that this evidence was legally sufficient to support termination of Amy’s parental rights under Ground O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Substantial compliance with a court-ordered family service plan does not prevent termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

in the Interest of M.J.W., a Child · filed 2016-08-09(b)(1)(O)

The Family Code, however, provides that even substantial compliance with a family service plan is insufficient to avoid a termination finding under subsection O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered plan for the child’s return after the child has spent at least nine months in state conservatorship following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of R.C., a Child · filed 2016-07-14(b)(1)(O)

The mother did not complete various services, and she did not abstain from the use of illegal drugs as required by the family service plan. Additionally, R.C. was initially removed from the mother due to abuse or neglect, and the Department was the managing conservator for R.C. for almost one year. Thus, we hold that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s finding under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with all requirements of a court-ordered service plan for regaining custody.

G.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2016-08-17(b)(1)(O)

Based on our review of the entire record, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination of G.H.’s parental rights under subsection (b)(1)(O) for his failure to comply with all requirements of the court-ordered family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent failed to comply with a requirement of a court-ordered service plan, subject to the section’s removal and conservatorship conditions.

in the Interest of F.M.A. · filed 2016-08-17(b)(1)(O)

Clear and convincing evidence of a parent’s failure to comply with any requirements of such a plan supplies a ground for termination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with specific requirements of a court-ordered service plan, even if the parent completes other tasks.

in Re M.F.D. · filed 2016-09-22(b)(1)(O)

The service plan required that Father refrain from all illegal drug use and criminal activity, as well as establish that he can “demonstrate an ability to provide basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and supervision for the child.” There was evidence presented that he did not satisfy these aspects of the service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) permits a finding of noncompliance when a parent completes some court-ordered services but fails to complete all required services.

in the Interest of S.F., a Child · filed 2016-09-30(b)(1)(O)

Although Appellant did comply with some portions of the trial court’s order, the evidence reflects that she did not complete the required services and, therefore, did not comply with the provisions of the trial court’s order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of S.S.R., J.H.R. Jr., and G.D.R · filed 2016-10-05(b)(1)(O)

In light of the entire record, we conclude the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father failed to comply with a court order that established the actions necessary for him to gain custody of the children in violation of section 106.001(b)(1)(O). TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of T. R. H. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2016-11-22(b)(1)(O)

Given Green’s testimony that the Department was seeking termination because Mother failed to complete her Family Service Plan and that Mother in fact did not complete any services except the psychological assessment (coupled with the lack of any evidence that Mother did complete any of her service tasks), we hold that the trial court could have determined, by sufficient clear and convincing evidence, that termination was warranted under § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan and provides no exception for minor parents.

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

While the Holley factors3 take into account a parent’s excuses for her acts and omissions as part of the best interest analysis, Section 161.001 does not provide any exceptions for minor parents.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with specific requirements in a court-ordered service plan.

in Re M.F.D. · filed 2016-12-08(b)(1)(O)

The service plan required that Father refrain from all illegal drug use and criminal activity, as well as establish that he can “demonstrate an ability to provide basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and supervision for the child.” There was evidence presented that he did not satisfy these aspects of the service plan. ... Father and his sister testified to his sister’s ability to provide for M.F.D., but that does not bear on whether Father met his obligations under his service plan, leading to the trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was warranted under 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions required for a child’s return; partial compliance does not defeat that ground.

in the Interest of C.N., C.N. and L.N. · filed 2017-02-02(b)(1)(O)

Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment and recognizing that the trial court, as the factfinder, is the sole arbiter of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor, we hold there is clear and convincing evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother and Father failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary to obtain the children’s return.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of A. D. N., M. D. N., D. J. N. and M. M. T. N. , Children · filed 2017-02-07(b)(1)(O)

Substantial compliance with a service plan is not sufficient to avoid a termination finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) supports termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered service plan.

In the Interest of M.L.R-U. · filed 2017-03-23(b)(1)(O)

We find this evidence both legally and factually sufficient to support termination under ground (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of P.S. and C.S., Minor Children · filed 2017-03-30(b)(1)(O)

Because a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother failed to comply with the terms of the order establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain the boys’ return, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) allows termination when a parent fails to complete the actions required by a court order to regain a child; partial compliance is insufficient.

In the Interest of J.M.T. · filed 2017-04-06(b)(1)(O)

Here, although the evidence showed that he completed some of the plan’s requirements, the evidence conclusively showed that Father did not comply with all of the requirements of the court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of A.D.S. and J.P.S. · filed 2017-08-02(b)(1)(O)

Because we hold the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s predicate finding under section 161.001(b)(1)(O), we do not address the trial court’s other two predicate findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent violates material requirements of a court-ordered service plan despite partial compliance.

in the Interest of I.L.G., a Child · filed 2017-09-20(b)(1)(O)

Sporadic incidents of partial compliance with a court-ordered family service plan do not justify reversing a termination order when the parent also violated material provisions of the same family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) requires completion of every court-ordered service requirement; substantial compliance and excuses for noncompliance do not suffice.

in the Interest of A.S., J.S., A.S., and D.S., Children · filed 2017-04-19(b)(1)(O)

This Court has long held that 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. ... After reviewing the evidence under the appropriate standards, we determine the evidence to be legally and factually sufficient to prove that Daniel failed to complete his court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not set a minimum number of unmet service plan requirements needed to support termination.

in the Interest of B.H.R., a Child · filed 2017-11-07(b)(1)(O)

Ground O 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to complete a court-ordered service plan; partial compliance is insufficient.

In the Interest of S.J.R.-Z. · filed 2017-12-20(b)(1)(O)

Substantial or partial compliance by Mom is insufficient to stave off termination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with court-ordered service plan requirements after having a reasonable opportunity to do so.

in the Interest of I.G., a Child · filed 2018-01-17(b)(1)(O)

We hold a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Crystal failed to comply with the court-ordered provisions of her family service plan, as required by subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of K.S. · filed 2018-02-01(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, we conclude that the jury’s verdict and the final order of termination as to subsection (O) are supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions required for a child’s return after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.A., a Child · filed 2018-02-08(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, applying the appropriate standard of review, we hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Father failed to comply with a court order that specifically established the actions he needed to take for A.A. to be returned to him.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) allows testimony about a court-ordered family service plan to prove a parent’s noncompliance even when the plan and order were not admitted into evidence.

in the Interest of B.A.M. · filed 2018-04-05(b)(1)(O)

While we agree that the record shows that Father’s family service plan and the court’s order requiring his compliance with it were never admitted into evidence during the trial, the evidence before the jury includes evidence about the plan’s requirements and the court’s order, and when reviewed as a whole, this testimony allowed the jury to conclude that Father failed to comply with the requirements of a court-ordered, family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) makes failure to comply with a court order specifying the actions required to obtain a child’s return a ground for terminating parental rights.

in the Interest of A.E.S., a Child · filed 2018-04-09(b)(1)(O)

Based on this record, we conclude the trial court could have formed a firm conviction and belief that Appellant knowingly failed to comply with the provisions of a court order specifying the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of A.E.S. Accordingly, we hold the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) supports termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with a court-ordered family service plan.

in the Interest of C.G., M.M.T., and A.M.T., Children · filed 2018-04-19(b)(1)(O)

The record contains clear and convincing evidence that Appellant did not fully comply with her court-ordered family service plan—as required to support a finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying steps to regain a child; partial compliance or explanations do not excuse the failure.

In re N.G. · filed 2018-04-18(b)(1)(O)

Regardless of any evidence of Father's partial or substantial compliance or explanations for failure to comply with the trial court's orders, section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not "make a provision for excuses" for a parent's failure to comply with the trial court's order, nor does it "provide a means of evaluating partial or substantial compliance with a plan."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out 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.

in the Interest of K.K.N. A/K/A K.K.N., a Child · filed 2018-06-26(b)(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that termination of Father’s parental rights was justified under section 161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to satisfy any condition in a family service plan.

in the Interest of Z.M.M., a Child · filed 2018-06-27(b)(1)(O)

Subsection (O) allows termination of the parent-child relationship when a parent has failed to satisfy any of the conditions set out in the family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) prevents termination under subsection (b)(1)(O) if the parent proves an inability to comply with specific court-ordered requirements, a good faith effort to comply, and that the failure was not the parent’s fault.

in the Interest of B.L.H, a Child · filed 2018-07-12(d)

We conclude that the trial court’s finding that Mother did not raise a defense under section 161.001(d) or, if raised, provide proof of such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent failed to fully comply with a court-ordered family service plan.

in the Interest of S.M.B., a Child · filed 2018-07-26(b)(1)(O)

After a review of the record, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under subsection (O) because both parents had an extensive list of tasks and services they were required to complete before the return of S.M.B., and they failed to comply with that plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) supplies a termination ground when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying how to regain a child who has spent at least nine months in Department conservatorship after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of B.K. and G.L., Children · filed 2018-08-16(b)(1)(O)

We find that Waugh-Brown’s testimony established, by clear and convincing evidence, that, prior to her January 2018 incarceration, Mother had ample opportunity, but failed, to comply with virtually every provision of the court-ordered family service plan. Accordingly, we find the evidence both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s Ground O finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan, if termination is also in the child’s best interest.

in the Interest of C.W. Children · filed 2018-09-19(b)(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Ana failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d)'s affirmative defense is unavailable when a parent cannot complete a service plan because of incarceration attributable to the parent's own fault.

in the Interest of L.L.N-P., a Child · filed 2018-11-21(d)

By requiring a parent to prove the failure to comply with the court ordered service plan is not attributable to any fault of the parent, we believe the Texas Legislature did not intend to make the affirmative defense available to parents who are unable to complete service plans because they are incarcerated through their own fault.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out the steps required for the child’s return, after the child has spent at least nine months in Department care following an emergency removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of J.D.R.G., Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2018-11-27(b)(1)(O)

Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding made pursuant to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) bars termination for failure to comply with a court order if the parent proves inability to comply, a good faith effort, and lack of fault by a preponderance of the evidence.

in the Interest of N.W.L.T and J.A.C, Children · filed 2018-11-29(d)

We conclude that the trial court’s finding that Mother did not raise a defense under section 161.001(d) or, if raised, that she failed to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with significant provisions of a court-ordered family service plan, even if the parent completes some requirements.

in the Interest of S. A. S., Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2018-12-18(b)(1)(O)

And even if it did, Father did not substantially complete his family service plan; he failed to comply with significant and material provisions. We hold that there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination was justified under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court-ordered service plan; completing only some requirements is insufficient.

in the Interest of J.S.G. and J.G. · filed 2019-01-07(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, we hold the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) allows termination for failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan; the trial court may rely on its earlier order requiring compliance.

in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child · filed 2019-01-09(b)(1)(O)

Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, we conclude the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mom failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(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 removed for abuse or neglect and held in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

in the Interest of A.M. and B.T. · filed 2019-01-10(b)(1)(O)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that N.B. committed the predicate act enumerated in section 161.001(b)(1)(O) and that termination of N.B.’s parental rights is in the best interest of A.M. and B.T.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the steps needed for a child’s return, if the child has been in Department care for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of J.R., a Child · filed 2019-01-17(b)(1)(O)

Accordingly, applying the appropriate standard of review, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Father failed to comply with a court order that specifically established the actions he needed to take for Jake to be placed in his care.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s refusal to take drug tests required by a court order can support termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(O), even if the parent completed other requirements.

in the Interest of A.T.W. Jr., Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-01-29(b)(1)(O)

In light of the entire record, including the undisputed evidence that the mother refused to take two drug tests, we conclude that the trial court reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the mother failed to comply with a provision of its order that specified the requirements the mother had to satisfy before having A.T.W. returned to her.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s failure to complete a court-ordered service plan can satisfy subsection (b)(1)(O) as a ground for termination.

in Re D. H., a Child · filed 2019-03-13(b)(1)(O)

Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, we conclude the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mom failed to comply ... with her court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of M.A., a Child · filed 2019-03-14(b)(1)(O)

The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) with respect to the father.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s completion of some, but not all, requirements of a court-ordered family service plan can support termination under subsection (b)(1)(O).

in the Interest of J.W., a Child · filed 2019-05-01(b)(1)(O)

The record shows that although John W. did comply with some of the provisions of the service plan, he did not comply with all of the provisions of the court order. Accordingly, a finding that John W. failed to comply with the requirements of the family service plan is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not set a minimum number of service-plan requirements a parent must fail or a specified degree of noncompliance.

in the Interest of D.C., a Child · filed 2019-05-01(b)(1)(O)

Ground O of Section 161.001 (b) (1) 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete court-ordered steps to regain a child removed for abuse or neglect and kept in Department conservatorship for at least nine months.

in Re E.F., J.P v. V.J v. and R.J v. Children · filed 2019-05-22(b)(1)(O)

Reviewing the evidence under the applicable standards, we conclude 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 establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of her children and that Mother failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that she was unable to comply with specific provisions and she made a good-faith effort to comply and failure to comply was not her fault.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out the actions necessary to regain a child who has been in the Department’s care for at least nine months after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A. W., a Child · filed 2019-05-23(b)(1)(O)

The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O). Based on the evidence in this case, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of her court-ordered family service plan, which specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of A.W., a child who had been in the managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of her removal from Appellant for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent failed to comply with court-ordered steps for the return of the children.

in the Interest of J.E.T. and Z.D.T., Children · filed 2019-06-06(b)(1)(O)

The jury and the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of her court-ordered service plan and that Appellant had engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being. Consequently, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) can excuse a parent’s failure to complete court-ordered services only when termination is sought under subsection (b)(1)(O).

A. L. G. A. and W. F. A. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-07-10(d)

However, this issue goes to whether Mother could prove that her failure to complete services was not attributable to her under section 161.001(d) of the family code, which allows a parent to show she should be excused from having complied with court-ordered services and therefore to avoid termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(O) only.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(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 A.L.J., A.L.J., G.A.G. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-09-24(b)(1)(O)

Substantial compliance with a service plan is not sufficient to avoid a termination finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not require failure to complete a particular number of service-plan provisions before parental rights may be terminated.

in the Interest of J.W., a Child · filed 2019-10-09(b)(1)(O)

Ground O of Section 161.001 (b) (1) does not quantify any particular number of provisions of the family service plan that a parent must fail to 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a sufficiently specific court order setting out the steps needed for a child’s return; a service plan incorporated into the order can satisfy that requirement.

in the Interest of S.B., a Child · filed 2019-11-05(b)(1)(O)

We conclude that the family service plan was court ordered and sufficiently specific to support termination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires full compliance with a court order specifying the actions needed to obtain a child’s return; partial compliance does not prevent termination.

in the Interest of A.P. and A v. Children · filed 2019-11-26(b)(1)(O)

We look only for a parent’s failure to comply fully with a court order without reference to the quantity of failure or degree of compliance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A court order incorporating a family service plan can satisfy subsection (b)(1)(O) when the plan clearly specifies the actions required for the parent to regain custody.

in the Interest of A.J.W., J.W. Jr., R.L.A.W., and J.L.W. · filed 2019-11-27(b)(1)(O)

We hold the trial court’s orders specifically established the actions necessary for M.D. to obtain the return of her children and that the above quoted requirements of the plan are clear and specific enough to support a finding under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete specific tasks in a court-ordered service plan required for the child’s return.

in the Interest of M.G. and M.G., III, Children · filed 2020-02-07(b)(1)(O)

We conclude the trial court was presented with clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support a finding that Father failed to comply with specific, itemized tasks, which were contained within a court order, required to obtain the return of his children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting out the steps for a child’s return after the child has been removed for abuse or neglect and spent at least nine months in state conservatorship.

in the Interest of E.K. and G.K., Children · filed 2021-01-14(b)(1)(O)

Based upon our review of the record, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a child has been in the Department’s conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect and the parent fails to follow a court order specifying the steps needed for the child’s return.

in the Interest of B.C.C. and K.M.C., Children · filed 2021-06-30(b)(1)(O)

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to obtain the child’s return, if the Department has held temporary managing conservatorship for at least nine months following emergency removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of L.L.-M.C. AKA L.C., a Child · filed 2021-10-21(b)(1)(O)

We conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the father failed to comply with court-ordered services to obtain the return of his child. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not require a parent to have a reasonable opportunity to comply with a court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of M.O., a Child · filed 2022-04-06(b)(1)(O)

However, the “reasonable opportunity” is applicable to a violation of subsection (N). There is no such requirement in subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a parent to complete every service in a court-ordered plan; failure to complete one requirement supports termination.

in the Interest of M.M., J.M.M., and L.A.M., Children · filed 2022-04-13(b)(1)(O)

A parent must complete all of the services on their plan to be in compliance and the failure to complete just one requirement supports a predicate finding under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Partial compliance with a court-ordered service plan is insufficient under ground (O); a parent must comply with the plan’s required provisions.

in the Interest of D.K., a Child · filed 2022-07-08(b)(1)(O)

As a result, we find the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under statutory ground (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a child was removed for abuse or neglect under chapter 262, remained in Department conservatorship for at least nine months, and the parent failed to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed for the child’s return.

R. J. and A. D. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2022-09-15(b)(1)(O)

Viewing the evidence under the applicable standards of review, we conclude that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the children were removed for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions required to regain a child in the Department’s care.

in the Interest of C.M., a Child · filed 2022-10-19(b)(1)(O)

In light of the entire record, the disputed evidence is such that the trial court could reasonably find by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order by failing to successfully complete the family service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of C.E., a Child · filed 2023-01-12(b)(1)(O)

There is no evidence that Mother failed to comply with any court order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent must comply with every court-ordered provision for the child’s return to avoid termination under subsection (b)(1)(O).

In the Interest of J.A., E.A., H.L., S.L., and S.L., Children v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-05-08(b)(1)(O)

The parent must comply with all of the court ordered provisions to avoid the application of § 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) covers a parent's failure to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to regain the child.

In the Interest of A.O., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-05-18(b)(1)(O)

In issuing our previous opinion, we upheld the trial court’s finding under subsection (O) and held that a rational trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding under subsection (O)—that Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for Appellant to obtain the return of A.O.—was true.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a specifically established service plan requirement only when the noncompliance is material in light of the plan as a whole.

In THE INTEREST OF R.J.G., R.J.G., D.G.M., CHILDREN v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-12-15(b)(1)(O)

In evaluating whether termination is warranted, the trial court must ensure that any asserted noncompliance is of a requirement that is neither unwritten nor vague but rather “specifically established” in a court-ordered plan. Additionally, to justify termination, the noncompliance must not be trivial or immaterial in light of the nature and degree of the parent’s compliance and the totality of the plan’s requirements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a sufficiently specific court order identifying what a parent must do before failure to comply can support termination.

In the Interest of L.D.W., K.A.W., and K.L.C., Children v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-04-19(b)(1)(O)

Because the order did not state what Mother was required to do “in clear, specific and unambiguous terms” so that Mother “readily [knew] what duties and obligations [were] imposed upon” her, we find that this order did not meet the specificity required under statutory ground O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Failure to complete a material requirement of a court-ordered family service plan can support termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

In the Interest of A.B.-G. and D.B., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2024-12-05(b)(1)(O)

Because the mother does not dispute that she failed to satisfy this aspect of her court-ordered family service plan and the trial court heard undisputed testimony regarding the importance of this requirement in the context of this particular case, we hold that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that termination was likewise warranted under section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsections (b)(1)(N) and (O) require sufficient evidence of constructive abandonment and failure to comply with a service plan; active participation in required counseling can defeat the noncompliance ground.

In the Interest of G.M.M., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-08-27(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O)

Therefore, the evidence is legally insufficient to support termination under subsection (N) and we sustain Mother’s first issue. ... Because the record unequivocally established that Mother engaged in, regularly attended, and actively participated in individual counseling to successfully complete SAFP, we hold the evidence is legally insufficient, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the fact-finder, to support termination of her parental rights pursuant to ground (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires compliance with the court-ordered steps for regaining a child; substantial compliance is insufficient.

in the Interest of C.M.C., C.E.C., G.L.C. · filed 2008-12-18(1)(O)

To the contrary, Texas courts have held that substantial compliance is not enough to avoid a termination finding under section 161.001(0).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) is not facially unconstitutional on the theory that the Department could impose impossible service-plan tasks, because courts review those plans for reasonableness.

In Re SAS · filed 2006-08-24(1)(O)

Thus, Angela's suggestion that the Department "could require the offending parent to complete impossible tasks" is insufficient to demonstrate that the statute always operates unconstitutionally. See B.S.W., 87 S.W.3d at 771. Therefore, we reject Angela's argument that section 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code is facially unconstitutional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O)’s service-plan ground for termination is not facially unconstitutional merely because the Department sets the plan’s requirements; courts review those plans for reasonableness.

in the Interest of S.A.S. and M.I.S. · filed 2006-08-24(1)(O)

Therefore, we reject Angela’s argument that section ... 161.001(1)(0) of the Texas Family Code is facially unconstitutional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires an actual court order specifying the actions necessary to regain the children; a family service plan alone does not suffice.

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

The record does not, however, contain any written orders requiring Cassandra to comply with any written court orders specifically establishing the actions necessary for Cassandra to obtain the return of her children. We conclude the Department failed to establish by legally sufficient evidence one of the essential elements under subparagraph (O) to support termination on that ground.

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; excuses and substantial compliance do not satisfy those requirements.

in the Interest of S.G. and S.J.G. · filed 2011-11-10(1)(O)

It is well settled that the family code does not provide for excuses for failure to complete court ordered services, nor does it consider ―substantial compliance‖ to be the same as completion. ... We conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Father failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not allow excuses for failing to comply with court-ordered steps required to regain custody of a child.

in the Interest of J.T.G., O.M.G., M.T.G., J.R.G., D.N.G., L.G. , M.G., Children · filed 2012-01-19(1)(O)

Under subsection (O), however, there is no provision for an excuse.

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, and substantial compliance does not prevent that finding.

in the Interest of Y.G. and Z.G., Children · filed 2012-02-29(1)(O)

However, substantial compliance with the provisions of a court order is not sufficient to avoid a finding under section 161.001(1)(O).