in the Interest of A.A., G.A., and K.A., Children, 07-21-00105-CV

Three children (approx. 9–12 years old) were removed from the father’s care after an October 2019 CPS intake alleging neglectful supervision and the father’s admitted drug use; children remained in foster care through the April 2021 final hearing.
Mother (M.A.) was largely unavailable to CPS early in the case, lived in New Mexico during parts of the case, and had a history of methamphetamine use with multiple relapses during the pendency of the case.
Department provided and the court ordered a family service plan; M.A. repeatedly failed to complete required services (drug treatment, psychological assessment, parenting classes, stable housing/communications) and had positive/untimely drug screens.
Trial court terminated M.A.’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered services when children were removed due to abuse/neglect) and found termination was in the children’s best interests.
M.A. appealed raising (1) lack of Texas UCCJEA jurisdiction because New Mexico issued initial custody orders, (2) insufficiency of evidence under § 161.001(b)(1)(O), and (3) insufficiency of evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests; the record ultimately included an email from the New Mexico judge declining jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (M.A.)	Defendant's Argument (State/Dept.)	Held
1. Jurisdiction under UCCJEA	New Mexico had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction from the divorce/custody decree; Texas did not adequately document that NM declined jurisdiction.	New Mexico declined to exercise jurisdiction (email from NM judge); children lived in Texas >6 months and Texas is more convenient forum.	Texas had jurisdiction; supplemental record contained NM judge’s email declining jurisdiction.
2. Predicate ground §161.001(b)(1)(O)	Children weren’t removed due to M.A.’s abuse/neglect (father had custody); Dept. failed to prove removal tied to her and she made good‑faith efforts but was prevented from complying by poverty/transportation.	Subsection (O) does not require the noncomplying parent to be the one who caused removal; children were removed for parental neglect (father) and M.A. failed to comply with court‑ordered services.	Evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O).
3. Best interests of the children	No evidence M.A.’s drug use caused endangerment; she loved the children and completed some services.	Ongoing drug use, failure to complete services, unstable housing/employment, and caseworker/ad litem opinions supported that termination served children’s best interests.	Court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Z.N., 602 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2020) (heightened review standard in termination cases under clear and convincing evidence)
In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018) (distinguishing legal vs. factual sufficiency under clear and convincing standard)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (framework for sufficiency review in termination cases)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best‑interest analysis)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring preservation of parent‑child relationship and best‑interest principles)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder’s credibility determinations)