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Law changed since H.B. 116 repealed former subsection (b)(1)(O) effective September 1, 2025; its service-plan ground and related subsection (d) defense apply only under the Act’s transition rule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(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.

in the Interest of A.R, A.R., M.R., K.R. Jr., and A.R., Children · filed 2012-03-07(1)(O)

On this record, we conclude a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her 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 supports a finding that the parent failed to comply with a court order setting out actions required for the child’s return.

in the Interest of O.W., a Child · filed 2012-04-12(1)(O)

We cannot hold that the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(1)(O) is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the finding.

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 actions necessary to regain custody.

in the Interest of J.F. R., Jr., Children · filed 2012-08-22(1)(O)

Additionally, because the record overwhelmingly supports Juan’s violation of section 161.001(1)(O) of the Family Code, we overrule his issues with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a court order establishing the actions necessary for a parent to regain a child; an unfiled monitored return plan that the court did not require the parent to follow does not qualify.

in the Interest of S. S., K. S., and R. W., Jr., Children · filed 2012-11-30(1)(O)

Because the permanency hearing orders did not require S.S. to comply with the provisions of the monitored return plan and the plan was not filed with the court, the monitored return plan is not an order contemplated by subsection 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when the evidence supports a firm belief or conviction that a parent failed to follow a court order setting the steps needed for a child’s return.

in the Interest of C.J.G. · filed 2013-01-04(1)(O)

Looking at the evidence in a favorable light to the finding as well as with merely appropriate deference to the finding, we hold that the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that J.R. violated its order providing steps necessary for J.R. to take to secure the return of his child. We therefore hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding regarding subsection (O) of section 161.001(1).

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 removed for abuse or neglect who has been in Department conservatorship for at least nine months; substantial compliance is insufficient.

Jenkins v. State · 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.

Substantial compliance with a court order setting the actions required for a child's return, or excuses for noncompliance, does not prevent a termination finding under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of M.S.D., Child · filed 2013-02-14(1)(O)

Nicole failed to comply with this order; neither substantial compliance nor excuses for failing to comply suffice to avoid a termination finding under subsection 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) allows termination based on failure to comply with a court order for the child’s return when the child has spent at least nine months in Department custody following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of F.E.M., a Child · filed 2013-03-14(1)(O)

The evidence is sufficient to show that F.E.M. had been removed from the mother due to abuse or neglect. The mother’s fourth issue is overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (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.D. and L.D., Children · filed 2013-04-11(1)(O)

We join them and hold that subsection 161.001(1)(O) does not require 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 an order specifying the steps to regain a child who has been in the Department’s conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of G.H., a Child · filed 2013-04-18(1)(O)

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) requires clear and convincing evidence of the specific court-ordered actions necessary to regain the child and the parent’s failure to complete them.

in the Interest of D.N. and D.N., Children · filed 2013-05-09(1)(O)

Based on our reading of the record, we conclude that we are outside the bounds of a strict but reasonable application of subsection (O) here, where we have nothing which clearly and convincingly specifies what Martha was supposed to do to comply or indicates what she did or did not do to be considered noncompliant.

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 the steps for the child’s return; incarceration does not excuse noncompliance.

in the Interest of M.R., a Child · filed 2013-07-25(1)(O)

The mother’s failure to comply with the court’s order is not excused by her incarceration. Consequently, the evidence is legally 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) supports termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes that ground.

in the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children · filed 2013-11-14(1)(O)

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.

A service plan under subsection (1)(O) can specify the steps for a child’s return even if the parent would become a possessory conservator.

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

Thus, the FSP specifically established the actions necessary for appellant to obtain the return of her children, even if as a possessory conservator.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s failure to complete court-ordered steps for a child’s return can support termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of J.T.J.M. and J.M.-N. T. · filed 2013-12-19(1)(O)

This evidence was legally and factually sufficient to allow the fact-finder to determine that Mother failed to comply with the trial court’s orders as required to gain the return of J.M. and J.T.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) can apply to a parent even when the child was removed from another caregiver’s home and the allegations of abuse or neglect were not made against that parent.

in the Interest of G.L.O., a Child · filed 2014-01-09(1)(O)

Furthermore, even though G.L.O. was not removed from the father’s home and was not removed as a result of allegations of abuse or neglect made specifically against the father, the father was still required to comply with subsection (O).

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 setting out the steps required to regain a child removed for abuse or neglect who remained in the Department’s care for at least nine months.

in the Interest of S.H., a Child · filed 2014-02-14(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 S.H. ... The evidence also showed that S.H. had been in the Department’s care for at least nine months and that S.H. 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.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with a court order for a child’s return after removal for abuse or neglect, without proof that the child was actually endangered.

in the Interest of T.S. and T.S. · filed 2014-04-10(1)(O)

While the State must show the removal of the children occurred due to abuse or neglect to justify termination under section 161.001(1)(O), subsection O does not require the State to prove the children were actually endangered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) cannot support termination when the evidence is legally insufficient to establish its requirements.

in the Interest of J. S. B., a Child · filed 2014-04-11(1)(O)

Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is legally insufficient to support termination of appellant’s parental rights under section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of T.M.D, Jr., B.M.D., Z.T.D and E.M.D. Children · filed 2014-05-06(1)(O)

Partial or substantial compliance with a court order 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) supports termination when the evidence establishes its court-order ground.

in the Interest of R.H., T.H. A/K/A T.G., M.H., A.G., M.G.and E.H., Children · filed 2014-05-08(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.

The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of X.H. and M.M.G., Children · filed 2014-10-02(1)(O)

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.

Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of D. P., a Child · filed 2014-11-07(1)(O)

Accordingly, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence sufficiently shows that termination of Mother’s parental rights to Daughter was justified 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 for regaining custody of a child who was removed for abuse or neglect and remained in the Department’s care for at least nine months.

A. K. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2014-11-21(1)(O)

Further, sufficient evidence also supports a determination that termination was proper under section 161.001(1)(O). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(O) (termination proper if parent fails to comply with court order setting out requirements for regaining custody of child who was in Department’s care for at least nine months and was removed for abuse or neglect).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O)’s abuse-or-neglect removal requirement includes risks or threats in the child’s environment.

in the Interest J. R. W., a Child · filed 2014-11-26(1)(O)

We interpret the words “abuse” and “neglect” broadly to necessarily include the risks or threats of the environment in which the child is placed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) provides no excuse for a parent’s failure to comply with court-ordered services required to regain custody.

in the Interest of A.N.R. and Z.C.R., Children · filed 2015-01-19(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires completion of court-ordered services; substantial compliance and excuses for noncompliance do not prevent a termination finding.

in the Interest of C.S., a Child · filed 2015-04-23(1)(O)

As set forth above, the family code does not allow excuses for the failure to complete court-ordered services and requires completion, not “substantial compliance.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent may be required to comply with court-ordered services under subsection (O) even if the child was removed from another parent’s home because of that parent’s abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of B.J.L., a Child · filed 2015-05-07(1)(O)

Furthermore, even though the child was not removed from the mother’s home and was not removed as a result of allegations of abuse or neglect made specifically against the mother, the mother was still required to comply with subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) permits termination when parents fail to comply with a court order specifying steps required to regain their children.

in the Interest of E.N.A., A.A., J.J.P. and M.P., Children · filed 2015-06-11(1)(O)

We hold that there was clear and convincing evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief that the parents failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for them to obtain the return of the children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The court upheld a subsection (1)(O) termination finding supported by admitted evidence.

in the Interest of F.E. III · filed 2015-06-25(1)(O)

Since the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with subsection 161.001(1)(O) of the Texas Family Code is undisputed, and is a finding that is supported by the evidence admitted during the trial, Mother’s claim that no evidence or insufficient evidence supports the finding is without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The court upheld a subsection (1)(O) termination finding on clear and convincing evidence.

in the Interest of K.N.M.M., a Child · filed 2015-07-15(1)(O)

With this evidence before it, the trial court had more than enough evidence to make a finding that, based upon clear and convincing evidence, L.N.W.B. had violated Subsection O of Section 161.001(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires a parent to comply with a court order for the child’s return even when the child was removed from another home because of abuse or neglect not attributed to that parent.

in the Interest of M.A.S.R., a Child · filed 2015-08-13(1)(O)

Furthermore, even though the child was not removed from the father’s home and was not removed as a result of allegations of abuse or neglect made specifically against the father, the father was still required to comply with subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (O) requires removal for abuse or neglect under chapter 262, at least nine months of Department conservatorship, a court order specifying the steps for the children’s return, and the parent’s failure to comply with that order.

in the Interest of C.C. and I.C., Children · filed 2015-09-29(b)(1)(O)

Parental rights may be terminated under section 161.001(b)(1)(O) if the Department establishes the children were removed under chapter 262 because of abuse or neglect; the Department has been the permanent or temporary managing conservator for at least nine months; a court order specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the children; and the parent failed to comply with that order.

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 neglect and held by the Department for more than nine months.

in the Interest of A.B., a Child · filed 2015-10-21(b)(1)(O)

The parental conduct described in subsection 161.001(b)(1)(O) was established as a matter of law, and termination was in A.B.‟s best interest.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (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 J.W., M.S., O.S., T.S., and K.S., Children · filed 2015-10-22(1)(O)

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.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) provides a termination ground when a parent fails to follow a court order specifying the steps for a child’s return after at least nine months in Department conservatorship following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of K.O., A.O., and O.O., Children · filed 2016-04-14(b)(1)(O)

The Department proved that Matthew did not submit to random drug tests, and Matthew admitted that he tested positive for methamphetamine in the month of the termination trial. We find the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Ground O.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires a parent to comply with every court-ordered condition for a child’s return.

in the Interest of J.C., A.C. and A.C., Children · filed 2016-05-04(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.

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

in the Interest of K.R.G., Jr., a Child · filed 2016-07-20(b)(1)(O)

We disagree. The parent who fails to comply with a court order as required by subsection (O) need not be the same parent whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) supplies a termination ground when a parent fails to complete court-ordered steps required for a child’s return.

in the Interest of A.D.M and D.D.M. Jr., Children · filed 2016-12-20(b)(1)(O)

We accordingly find the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the father failed to comply with a court order that established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his children.

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 actions needed to regain a child in the Department’s conservatorship.

in the Interest of S. L. Jr. and A. A. · filed 2017-01-19(b)(1)(O)

We conclude that the Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant committed the predicate act enumerated in section 161.001(b)(1)(O) and that termination of appellant’s parental rights is in the best interest of S.L. Jr. and A.A.

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 obtain the child’s return.

in the Interest of M.A.A., a Child · filed 2017-02-03(b)(1)(O)

Given the evidence we described throughout this opinion (the reiteration of which being unnecessary), the fact-finder could have formed a firm conviction and belief that M.A. knowingly failed to comply with the provisions of a court order specifying the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of E.M.H., a Child · filed 2017-03-03(b)(1)(O)

Clear and convincing evidence supported findings made pursuant to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1). We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support that finding, and we overrule the father’s tenth and eleventh issues.

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 and the parent fails to complete the actions required by a court-ordered service plan.

in the Interest of T. L. B. Jr. AKA T. B. · filed 2017-03-16(b)(1)(O)

We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s predicate finding under Subsection (O).

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 court order specifying the steps necessary to regain a child.

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

Based on this record, we conclude the fact-finder 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 him to obtain the return of his child.

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 and sets no minimum number of unmet requirements.

in the Interest of V.T.E., a Child · filed 2018-02-28(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) provides a ground for termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifying the actions necessary for a child’s return.

in the Interest of D.D., a Child · filed 2018-04-05(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 Mother failed to comply with a court order that specifically established the actions she needed to take for D.D. to be returned to her.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O), partial compliance with court-ordered services can support a finding that a parent failed to comply with an order specifying the steps needed to regain a child.

in the Interest of Z.A., A.A., and R.L., Children · filed 2018-07-17(b)(1)(O)

The father only partially complied with the terms of his service plan. ... We hold that the evidence at trial supported the trial court’s finding under subsection (O). 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 his child.

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 B.C., a Child · filed 2018-09-27(b)(1)(O)

Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s finding made pursuant to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(b)(1). We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support that finding, and we overrule Appellant’s second issue.

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 for a child’s return after the child has spent at least nine months in state custody following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of J.B. A/K/A J.D., a Child · filed 2018-09-27(b)(1)(O)

Because we have held the evidence legally and factually sufficient on both elements challenged by Mother, we also conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s termination finding based on subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent’s refusal to submit to drug testing can support termination under subsection (b)(1)(O) when a court order requires compliance with a service plan throughout the case.

in the Interest of J.J., Children · filed 2018-11-26(b)(1)(O)

And the trial court’s Temporary Orders ordered her to comply with the requirements of the service plan “during the pendency of this suit.” Thus, Mother remained under a court order to comply with the Department’s requests for drug tests throughout the end of 2017 and early 2018, until her rights were terminated following the placement hearing. It is undisputed that she refused to comply with those requests. Thus, whether we consider only the evidence supporting the court’s judgment or all the evidence in the record, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order specifically establishing her obligations to obtain return of the children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of A. J. H., Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-01-15(b)(1)(O)

This does not require the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect warranted the child’s initial removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to complete even one requirement of a court-ordered family service plan.

in the Interest of D.D.R., N.R.R., and A.R., Children · filed 2019-01-30(b)(1)(O)

Based upon the same evidence and conclusions, the evidence is also factually sufficient to support the trial court’s termination 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 steps required to regain a child who has been in Department conservatorship for at least nine months after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.S., Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-04-23(b)(1)(O)

The evidence conclusively showed that L.G. did not comply with the requirements of her court-ordered service plan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination for failure to comply with an order setting out the actions needed to regain a child, and compliance is measured against the order actually entered.

in the Interest of H.M. · filed 2019-04-25(b)(1)(O)

Measuring the sufficiency of the evidence by the terms of what the order required Mother to accomplish, the record shows the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother did not obtain a psychological evaluation or maintain housing suitable to raise a child.

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 that the failure was not the parent’s fault.

in the Interest of J. Q. J., Minor Child. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-05-30(d)

Accordingly, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to prove her statutory defense by a preponderance of the evidence. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) can apply even when a different parent’s abuse or neglect caused the child’s removal.

in the Interest of M.G., a Child · filed 2019-06-11(b)(1)(O)

The parent who fails to comply with a court order as required by subsection (O) need not be the same parent whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal.

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 the child; admitting a family service plan does not substitute for that order.

in the Interest of A.C. AKA A.A., a Child · filed 2019-06-27(b)(1)(O)

In our review, we did not consider section 161.001(b)(1)(O) to be a sufficient ground for termination of S.A.’s parental rights. There is no court order in the record establishing the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child. Admission into evidence of a family service plan is not the equivalent of a court order.

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 to regain children who have been in state care for at least nine months after removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.H., F.H., K.H., and C.H., Children · filed 2019-07-18(b)(1)(O)

The undisputed evidence at trial established that Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of her court-ordered family service plan. ... Furthermore, at the time of the final hearing, the children had been in the Department’s care for well over nine months and had been removed from the parents’ care due to 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 for a child’s return after at least nine months of Department conservatorship following removal for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of A.M.G., a Child · filed 2019-09-27(b)(1)(O)

We conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to establish that Abigail was in the managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months following her removal for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An unexcused failure to meet one court-ordered requirement for a child’s return can support termination under subsection (b)(1)(O).

in the Interest of Z.M.M., a Child · filed 2019-10-02(b)(1)(O)

Because Father’s noncompliance with the court-ordered requirement that he remain drug free was unexcused, we need not address Father’s arguments to excuse his noncompliance with the court-ordered requirement that he complete drug treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A court may find noncompliance with a court order under subsection (O) based on competent evidence of the required actions even if the service plan was not filed.

in Re V.A.G., Children · filed 2019-11-13(b)(1)(O)

Although Mother’s service plan was not filed with the trial court, other competent evidence in the record is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to regain custody of her children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

W. C. and Z. B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2020-03-18(b)(1)(O)

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court was presented with evidence that was legally and factually sufficient to support its finding that W.C. failed to comply with specific, itemized actions contained within the trial court’s order that were required to obtain the return of his child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) requires a parent defending against termination for failure to comply with a court order to prove inability to comply, a good faith effort to comply, and that the failure was not the parent's fault.

C. C. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2020-08-19(d)

Simply pleading a Subsection (d) defense is not enough. Mother also had the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that she was unable to comply, that she made a good faith effort to comply, and that her failure to comply was not attributable to any fault on her part.

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 for a child’s return; no particular degree of noncompliance is required.

in the Interest of M.J., a Child · filed 2020-11-18(b)(1)(O)

The Department need only establish the parent’s failure to comply fully with a court order—it need not establish any particular quantity of failure or degree of compliance.

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 needed to regain the child.

in the Interest of J.N.P. · filed 2021-03-11(b)(1)(O)

The trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that Warren “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.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(O); In re C.W., 586 S.W.3d at 406.

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 the children’s return.

in the Interest of T.A.G., J.Y.G., and N.J.G., Children · filed 2021-05-19(b)(1)(O)

Evidence of Father’s failure to complete his drug assessment and show proof of stable housing and employment, as ordered by the trial court, is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the subsection O finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O) requires a valid court order specifying the actions a parent must take to obtain the child’s return; a service plan that was never made a court order cannot support termination.

in the Interest of T.A., Z.B.M., D.S.B., E.M. & B.M., Children · filed 2021-05-28(b)(1)(O)

From the record on appeal, the Department did not file the original service plan, it was never made an order of the court, D.H.B., Jr. never signed the original service plan, and thus, before the amended service plan filed in July 2020, there was no written order requiring him to comply with the court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for him to obtain return of his children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires evidence that a court order specifically established the actions necessary for a parent to regain the children and that the parent failed to comply with it.

in the Interest of C.W., C.W., and F.S.W., Children · filed 2022-01-27(b)(1)(O)

In this case, the Department failed to present any evidence that a court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for the father to obtain the return of the children, such as a court-ordered family service plan, was in effect after the 2019 final SAPCR order. Because the evidence does not show that such a court order existed, it follows that the evidence also does not show that the father failed to comply with the provisions of a court order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of J.E.G., B.M.A. Jr., and A.G.A., Children · filed 2022-08-10(d)

After reviewing the evidence under the appropriate standards of review, we conclude D.G. did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) she was unable to comply with specific provisions of the court order; and (2) she made a good faith effort to comply with the order and the failure to comply with the order is not attributable to any fault on her part.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) requires a parent seeking to avoid termination for failure to follow a court order to prove inability to comply, a good faith effort, and lack of fault.

in the Interest of H.N.G., R.S.G., R.A.T., and J.M.T., Children · filed 2023-01-11(d)

Thus, we conclude that there is legally and factually sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have reasonably concluded Mother had not met her burden of proof under section 161.001(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(d) requires a parent defending against termination for failure to comply with a court order to prove inability to comply, a good-faith effort to comply, and lack of fault by a preponderance of the evidence.

J. G. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2023-05-25(d)

Simply pleading a Subsection (d) defense is not enough; the parent must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was unable to comply, that she made a good-faith effort to comply, and that her failure to comply was not attributable to any fault on her part.

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 an inability to comply and a good faith effort to do so, with the failure attributable to no fault of the parent.

In the Interest of K.G.F., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-05-14(d)

This evidence supports the trial court’s implicit finding that Father did not establish his good faith efforts to comply with the family service plan by a preponderance of the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) addresses termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order setting the actions required to regain children removed for abuse or neglect.

R. D. and S. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2016-11-22(b)(1)(O)

We therefore modify the trial court’s final decree to reflect the proper citation for the fourth statutory ground for termination found by the jury, which is Texas Family Code, Section 161.001(b)(1)(O).

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; abuse of a sibling alone does not satisfy this requirement.

in the Interest of E.C.R., a Child · filed 2012-03-15(1)(O)

For a trial court to terminate parental rights under section 161.001(1)(O), it must find that the child who is the subject of the suit was removed as a result of the abuse or neglect of that specific child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed under Chapter 262 for actual abuse or neglect; a risk of abuse or neglect alone is insufficient.

in the Interest of C.B., a Child · filed 2012-07-27(1)(O)

The affidavit portrays a volatile home environment and behavior by the mother and her paramour capable of resulting in abuse or neglect of a two-year-old child, but § 161.001(1)(O) requires actual occurrence of abuse or neglect to justify termination of parental rights.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A safety plan violation can constitute neglect under section 161.001(1)(O) when it results in a child’s removal.

in the Interest of H.S v., Children · filed 2012-08-22(1)(O)

That the neglect committed by appellant that resulted in the removal of the children under Chapter 262 might also constitute a violation of the safety plan does not render the act any less neglectful for purposes of section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Evidence of neglectful supervision and the findings supporting removal under Chapter 262 can establish that a child was removed for abuse or neglect under subsection (1)(O).

L. Z. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2012-08-23(1)(O)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to an affirmative finding under section 161.001(1)(O), we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence presented to allow a reasonable factfinder to for a firm belief or conviction that J.Z. was removed from L.Z. for “abuse or neglect.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require the child to have suffered abuse or neglect in the home of the parent whose rights are terminated.

in the Interest of A.O., a Child · filed 2012-11-14(1)(O)

Mary’s complaint that the findings do not show A.O. was removed from her home is of no effect; subsection (O) does not require A.O. to have been ... subject to abuse or neglect in Mary’s home.

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 failure to comply with a court order can support termination.

in the Interest of H. L. F., a Child · filed 2012-11-30(1)(O)

The Department offered no evidence that H.L.F. was removed due to abuse or neglect. Instead, the testimony showed that the Department removed H.L.F. because its policy prohibited S.Y. from taking the child.

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 person whose abuse or neglect led to the child’s removal.

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

Applying well-established rules of statutory construction, subsection (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with a court order be the same person 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 a court order for the child’s return after the child was removed because of abuse, neglect, or a substantial risk of harm.

in the Interest of B.S., a Child · filed 2013-07-25(1)(O)

The evidence presented in this case showed that B.S. was removed due to safety concerns and the substantial risk and continuing danger that would have resulted if he had been allowed to leave the hospital with his mother and father. Following E.C.R., we hold that Appellees met their burden under Section 161.001(1)(O) to show that B.S. was removed due to abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O) requires DFPS to prove that the child was removed for abuse or neglect; those terms include risks or threats in the child’s environment.

in the Interest of R. M. S. v. Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2013-10-11(1)(O)

We agree that it is DFPS’s burden to show, under subsection O, that the child was removed for abuse or neglect, see In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 246 (Tex. 2013) (holding that “subsection O requires proof of abuse or neglect[.]”), and we interpret the words “abuse” and “neglect” broadly to necessarily include the risks or threats of the environment in which the child is placed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) supports termination when the evidence satisfies that ground.

in the Interest of A.Y. and P.J.T., Children · filed 2013-12-12(1)(O)

Accordingly, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient on the subsection 161.001(1)(O) ground, and we overrule issue one.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) treats risks in a child’s environment, including risks shown by a parent’s history with other children, as relevant to whether the child was removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of K.N.D., a Child · filed 2014-01-17(1)(O)

We further held that a reviewing court may examine a parent’s history with other children as a factor of the risks or threats of the environment, saying, “Part of [the] calculus includes the harm suffered or the danger faced by other children under the parent’s care.” Id. In light of In re E.C.R., we hold that K.N.D. was removed for abuse or neglect under chapter 262 of the Texas Family Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1)(O)’s removal-for-abuse-or-neglect requirement can be satisfied by a substantial risk of continuing danger to the child, even without actual abuse or neglect of that child.

G. N. E.-A., A/K/A G. N. E. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2014-07-29(1)(O)

The evidence presented in this case showed that T.R.D. was removed due to safety concerns and the substantial risk and continuing danger that would have resulted if T.R.D. had been allowed to remain with G.N.E. We conclude that the Department met its burden to show that T.R.D. was removed due to abuse or neglect as the jury found.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O)’s abuse-or-neglect requirement is satisfied when the child was removed because of a substantial risk of abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of C.C.B., a Child · filed 2014-10-08(1)(O)

Evidence of the mother’s physical or mental state at that time combined with the condition of the room constituted sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could have determined by clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed due to a substantial risk of abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The evidence established that the children were removed for abuse or neglect under Chapter 262, satisfying subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of P.D. and C.D., Children · filed 2014-11-07(1)(O)

Further, the record conclusively establishes that the children were removed for abuse or neglect under Chapter 262 of the Texas Family Code. Therefore, we find that the State established the conduct necessary to terminate Amy’s parental rights under Section 161.001(1)(O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The evidence supported the finding that the child was removed for abuse or neglect under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of T. W., a Child · filed 2014-12-03(1)(O)

We conclude that there is sufficient evidence that T.W. was removed from appellant’s care for abuse or neglect under chapter 262 of the family code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) does not require a child’s removal from a parent for abuse or neglect to occur within a set time before the termination hearing.

in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C. · filed 2015-04-29(1)(O)

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires only that the affected children be in the Department’s care for more than 9 months and to have been removed from a parent pursuant to Chapter 262, but does not require the removal to have occurred within a certain time of the termination hearing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The court found the evidence insufficient to support termination under subsection (1)(O).

in the Interest of E.W., a Child · filed 2015-06-29(1)(O)

Accordingly, we find that the evidence introduced at the final hearing was insufficient to support termination under ground (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An earlier removal from a parent for neglect can satisfy subsection (1)(O)’s removal requirement even when the child is later removed from relatives.

in the Interest of J.H. · filed 2015-08-31(1)(O)

Although J.H. was removed from the care of the relatives appointed as managing conservators, J.H. was originally removed from Mother’s care pursuant to Chapter 262. ... J.H.’s original removal from Mother’s care based upon neglect was a precipitating event from which the modification proceeding terminating Mother’s parental rights began and from which J.H. was placed with his relatives.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O)’s removal requirement can be met even when the parent was not living with the children when the Department took possession of them.

in the Interest of J.R.W., Children · filed 2015-08-27(1)(O)

When the Department took possession of the children under section 262.104 and became their temporary managing conservator, the Department necessarily “removed” them from both parents, not just Mother. The fact that Father was not residing in the residence with the children at the time does not mean the children were not removed from his care and his right of custody.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(O) requires proof that the child was removed for abuse or neglect, which can include danger faced by another child in the parent’s care.

in the Interest of D.J v. a Child · filed 2015-10-27(1)(O)

Evidence of “danger faced” by Jason is some evidence that David was removed for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not require proof that the child was actually abused or neglected; removal based on a risk of abuse or neglect can satisfy it.

in the Interest of J.D.P., a Child · filed 2015-12-17(b)(1)(O)

The Department, however, need not prove actual abuse or neglect of the child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) does not require proof of actual abuse or neglect; risks or threats in the child’s environment can satisfy its removal requirement.

in the Interest of T.W., a Child · filed 2016-06-21(b)(1)(O)

To comply with subsection (O), the Department did not have to prove actual abuse or neglect of T.W.; rather, the terms “abuse or neglect” as used in the statute “necessarily includes the risks or threats of the environment in which the child is placed.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O)’s removal requirement can be satisfied by a risk of abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of C.C., J.C., Jr., J.J.C., and E.C., Children · filed 2016-11-16(b)(1)(O)

The supreme court plainly held that subsection 161.001(b)(1)(O) can be satisfied by risk of abuse or neglect, which would apply to the removal of Nora’s children.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of J.R.H., Jr., H.H., and B.T., Children · filed 2018-12-19(b)(1)(O)

We agree with our sister courts that ground (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with the court order be the same parent whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s removal-for-abuse-or-neglect requirement includes removal because a parent’s drug use and violent relationship endanger the child’s physical health or safety.

D. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2019-04-09(b)(1)(O)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the subsection (O) finding, we conclude that the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that Darlene’s drug-related conduct and violent relationship with her girlfriend created an environment that endangered Casey’s physical health or safety and that he was, therefore, removed for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s removal requirement can be satisfied by evidence that the children were at risk of neglect when removed.

in the Interest of A.M.L.M., T.W.M., S.L.M., Children · filed 2019-03-14(b)(1)(O)

These allegations—“even if not evidence for all purposes”—constitute legally sufficient evidence that the children were at risk of neglect at the time of removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of F.J., a Child · filed 2019-03-19(b)(1)(O)

In doing so, we expressly held that “ground (O) does not require that the parent who failed to comply with the court order be the same person whose abuse or neglect triggered the child’s removal.” ... Accordingly, we overrule Mother’s sole point of error on appeal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s abuse-or-neglect requirement can be met by evidence that the child was removed because of a substantial risk arising from drug use, domestic violence, and home conditions.

in the Interest of Z.L.C., a Child · filed 2019-05-31(b)(1)(O)

Evidence of the mother’s use of methamphetamine while pregnant, Appellant’s use of drugs, domestic violence between Appellant and the mother, and the condition of their home constituted sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have determined by clear and convincing evidence that Z.L.C. was removed because of a substantial risk of abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A parent need not have caused the child’s removal for abuse or neglect for subsection (b)(1)(O) to support termination based on failure to comply with court-ordered reunification services.

in the Interest of A.H. · filed 2019-05-23(b)(1)(O)

Therefore, it is immaterial whether abuse and neglect on the fault of Father was the reason for A.H.’s removal, because his failure to provide A.H. with a safe, stable environment in light of his admittance that he was aware of Mother’s issues demonstrates neglect as required under subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s abuse-or-neglect removal requirement can be satisfied by risks in the child’s environment, including harm to other children in the parent’s care.

in the Interest of Z.B. and S.B., Children · filed 2019-09-11(b)(1)(O)

Therefore, in evaluating abuse or neglect under chapter 262, “risks” or “threats” of the environment in which the child is placed, as well as the harm or danger suffered by other children under the parent’s care, can be considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A trial court’s findings in earlier orders may establish that a child was removed for abuse or neglect under subsection (b)(1)(O).

A. B. A/K/A A. L. B. A/K/A A. B. A/K/A M. S. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2020-02-05(b)(1)(O)

A trial court’s findings in its previous orders may be sufficient to support the third prong of subsection (O).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (O) requires evidence that the child was removed from a parent under Chapter 262; removal from a conservator or legal guardian who is not a parent does not satisfy it.

in the Interest of T.J., a Child · filed 2020-02-13(b)(1)(O)

The language used by the legislature in subsection (O) does not cover the situation in which a child is removed from a conservator or a legal guardian who is not a parent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) allows termination based on failure to comply with a return order when the child was removed for abuse or neglect, including a risk of abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of J. G., III, K.G., G. G., Children · filed 2020-02-19(b)(1)(O)

Therefore, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support termination of J.G., II’s parental rights under subsection (O) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b(1)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of J. M. and F. M., Children · filed 2020-03-31(b)(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(b)(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 children’s removal.

in the Interest of A.A., G.A., and K.A., Children · filed 2021-10-05(b)(1)(O)

As the Department points out, under subsection (O), the Department is not required to show that the parent who failed to comply with a court order is the same parent whose abuse or neglect of the children warranted the children’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires evidence that abuse or neglect of the child caused the child’s removal before failure to follow court orders can support termination.

in the Interest of A.G., a Child · filed 2022-02-17(b)(1)(O)

Because DFPS produced no evidence to support a finding that Mother had abused or neglected A.G. during the three days prior to his removal after his birth, causing his removal from her, we sustain her first issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (O) requires proof that the child was removed from the parent because of that parent’s abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of E.D.E.L., a Child · filed 2022-07-01(b)(1)(O)

We conclude the evidence is insufficient to support termination of Mother’s parental rights under section 161.001(b)(1)(O) because the removal had nothing to do with claims of abuse or neglect by Mother.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O)’s requirement that a child be removed for abuse or neglect can be supported by findings in prior removal orders.

R. J. and A. D. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2022-08-11(b)(1)(O)

The trial court reasonably could have relied on its findings in these orders to find that the children were removed for abuse or neglect under chapter 262.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

in the Interest of S. A. & P. A., Children · filed 2022-10-31(b)(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 warranted the children’s removal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) requires clear and convincing evidence that the child was removed for abuse or neglect.

in the Interest of P.H., a Child · filed 2022-12-14(b)(1)(O)

It chose instead to limit its proof to subsection (O) and was thereby required to bring clear and convincing evidence that P.H. was removed from Father’s care for reasons of abuse or neglect. We conclude that a reasonable fact finder could not have formed a firm ... conviction that the Department removed P.H. for abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b)(1)(O)’s abuse or neglect element can be satisfied by evidence that prenatal drug exposure, criminal conduct, and incarceration created a substantial risk of abuse or neglect.

In the Interest of J.M.F., Jr., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-02-23(b)(1)(O)

The evidence of Mother's pattern of criminal conduct at the time of Juda’s birth, her incarceration after his birth, that she had exposed Juda to illegal substances during her pregnancy and was living a lifestyle risking possibility of incarceration, constituted sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have determined by clear and convincing evidence that Juda had been removed because of a substantial risk of abuse or neglect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under section 161.001(b)(1)(O), removal for abuse or neglect may rest on risks from domestic violence and verbal abuse in the child’s home.

In the Interest of L.M.W., a Child v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-03-06(b)(1)(O)

The trial court also could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the parents’ home created a risk of abuse and neglect—necessitating the removal of the child—because there was evidence of domestic violence and verbal abuse within the home.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O) do not require the Department to prove that it made reasonable efforts to return the child.

in the Interest of G.C. and J.C., Children · filed 2013-09-26(1)(D), (1)(E), (1)(O)

To terminate parental rights under subsections (D), (E), and (O), the Department is not required to prove that it made reasonable efforts to return the children.