Skip to content 
A parent’s rights cannot be ended because someone is angry, exhausted, or ready for the conflict to stop. Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas begins with a stricter rule: Texas law requires a specific statutory ground, clear and convincing evidence, and a separate finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.
At The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC, a Houston-based family law firm led by Bryan Joseph Fagan, a South Texas College of Law graduate and recognized authority on Texas divorce and custody law, we know these questions often come up during painful family seasons. A parent may be absent. A stepparent may be ready to adopt. Support may be unpaid. CPS may be involved. Or a family may simply be trying to create safety, stability, and peace for a child.
This guide explains what Texas Family Code §161.001 lists, what must be proved, how private termination cases differ from CPS cases, and why a ground alone is never enough. Our mission is educating families and protecting futures, and that starts with helping you understand the law before you make permanent decisions.
Key Takeaways
- A ground is a specific statutory reason. Section 161.001(b)(1) lists them, and each has its own elements.
- One ground is not enough. The court must also find that termination serves the child’s best interest.
- Both findings need clear and convincing evidence. The party asking for termination carries that burden.
- Some grounds involve the Department. Constructive abandonment, for example, applies only to a child in the Department’s conservatorship.
- Some facts are not enough by themselves. Section 161.001(c) lists examples, such as homeschooling or being economically disadvantaged.
Quick Answer
Texas law lists the grounds for termination in Section 161.001(b)(1), and a court may terminate only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, both one of those grounds and that termination is in the child’s best interest. Each ground has specific elements, and some apply only when the Department of Family and Protective Services is involved.
What Are the Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights in Texas?
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas refers to the specific statutory reasons listed in Texas Family Code §161.001(b)(1), but proving one ground is only part of the case. A Texas court must also find, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interest.
The current statute lists 21 grounds, lettered (A) through (U). These include abandonment, endangering conditions, endangering conduct, failure to support, certain criminal convictions, constructive abandonment in Department cases, controlled-substance issues, voluntary relinquishment, and other specific grounds. Each ground has its own elements, so the exact ground pleaded in the petition matters.
Older online articles may still list failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan as a separate termination ground. The current official text, as amended through 2025, no longer includes that separate ground, so parents should rely on the statute’s current wording, not outdated summaries.
At The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC, we help families understand what the law actually requires before permanent decisions are made. For families in Humble, Houston, Harris County, and across Texas, our termination of parental rights guidance can help explain how statutory grounds, evidence, and best interest work together.
| Ground | What the statute requires | Subdivision |
|---|---|---|
| Leaving the child, intending not to return | Voluntarily leaving the child alone or with someone who is not a parent and expressing an intent not to return. | (b)(1)(A) |
| Leaving the child without support: three months | Voluntarily leaving the child alone or with someone who is not a parent, without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the child’s adequate support, and remaining away for at least three months. | (b)(1)(B) |
| Leaving the child without support: six months | Voluntarily leaving the child alone or with another person without providing adequate support and remaining away for at least six months. | (b)(1)(C) |
| Endangering conditions | Knowingly placing or knowingly allowing the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being. | (b)(1)(D) |
| Endangering conduct | Engaging in conduct, or knowingly placing the child with persons who engage in conduct, that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being. | (b)(1)(E) |
| Failure to support | Failing to support the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a one-year period ending within six months of the date the petition was filed. | (b)(1)(F) |
| Abandoning a child who cannot be identified | Abandoning the child without identifying the child or furnishing a means of identification, when the child’s identity cannot be found with reasonable diligence. | (b)(1)(G) |
| Abandoning the mother during pregnancy | Knowing of the pregnancy, voluntarily abandoning the mother from a time during the pregnancy through the birth, failing to provide adequate support or medical care for her during that time, and remaining apart from or failing to support the child since the birth. | (b)(1)(H) |
| Refusing certain court orders | Contumaciously refusing to submit to a reasonable and lawful court order under Subchapter D, Chapter 261. | (b)(1)(I) |
| School enrollment or absence from home | Being the major cause of the child’s failure to be enrolled in school as the Education Code requires, or of the child’s absence from home without consent for a substantial length of time or without intent to return. | (b)(1)(J) |
| Relinquishment affidavit | Executing, before or after the suit is filed, an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights. | (b)(1)(K) |
| Conviction for the death or serious injury of a child | Being convicted, or placed on community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under listed Penal Code offenses, or adjudicated for such conduct. | (b)(1)(L) |
| Prior termination for endangerment | Having had the parent-child relationship with another child terminated based on a finding under (D) or (E), or a substantially equivalent law of another state, subject to the filing deadline in Section 161.001(d-1). | (b)(1)(M) |
| Constructive abandonment (Department conservatorship) | Constructively abandoning a child who has been in the Department’s managing conservatorship for at least six months, when the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child, the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact, and the parent has shown an inability to provide a safe environment. | (b)(1)(N) |
| Controlled-substance use | Using a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the child’s health or safety, and either failing to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program or continuing to abuse a controlled substance after completing one. | (b)(1)(O) |
| Criminal conduct and confinement | Knowingly engaging in criminal conduct that resulted in a conviction and in confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for at least two years from the date the petition was filed. | (b)(1)(P) |
| Child born addicted | Being the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than one legally obtained by prescription, as the statute defines that term. | (b)(1)(Q) |
| Emergency infant delivery | Voluntarily delivering the child to a designated emergency infant care provider without expressing an intent to return for the child. | (b)(1)(R) |
| Murder or sexual assault of the other parent | Being convicted of murdering the child’s other parent, of attempting or soliciting that offense, or of sexually assaulting the other parent. | (b)(1)(S) |
| Community supervision for sexual assault of the other parent | Being placed on community supervision for being criminally responsible for sexually assaulting the child’s other parent. | (b)(1)(T) |
| Solicitation of a minor | Being convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor or online solicitation of a minor. | (b)(1)(U) |
Facing grounds alleged against you?
Which subdivision is pleaded, and what evidence supports it, shapes the whole case. A Texas family-law attorney at the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC can review the petition and explain what the other side must prove, without promising a particular result.
Why a Ground Alone Is Not Enough
Section 161.001(b)(2) requires a second, separate finding: that termination is in the child’s best interest. Both the ground and best interest must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and proof of a ground does not supply proof of best interest.
Section 101.007 defines clear and convincing evidence as the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
Case Law Note: A Ground Alone Is Not Enough
In the Department case In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S., the Supreme Court of Texas held that termination requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory ground and the child’s best interest, and that the best-interest requirement has independent force: it is not automatically satisfied because a parent committed one of the listed acts. How courts weigh best interest is covered on our best-interest guide.
Which Grounds Involve the Department?
Some Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas apply differently when the Department of Family and Protective Services is involved. In a Department case, the court may look not only at the parent’s conduct, but also at what the Department did to try to return the child safely and whether danger remains under Texas Family Code §161.001.
Constructive abandonment is one example. Under §161.001(b)(1)(N), this ground applies only when the child has been in the Department’s managing conservatorship for the required period, the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child, the parent did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact, and the parent showed an inability to provide a safe environment. That makes it different from a private termination case between family members.
Section 161.001(f) adds another protection in Department-filed suits. The court must make written findings that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child and that a continuing danger remains, unless those efforts were waived. In plain English, the Department cannot simply point to family conflict and ask for termination; the case must be supported by the statute, the evidence, and the child’s best interest.
In straightforward cases, the issue may be whether the Department met each required element. In more complex cases, the facts may involve service plans, visitation history, safety concerns, substance abuse treatment, placement stability, or disputed evidence. The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps families understand how Department cases differ from private termination cases, including for parents seeking guidance from an Austin termination of parental rights attorney.
What Is Not Enough by Itself?
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas are serious, but Texas law also protects parents from having rights terminated based only on certain ordinary life circumstances or parenting choices. Texas Family Code §161.001(c) says several facts, standing alone, do not constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to terminate parental rights.
For example, a court cannot terminate parental rights based only on the fact that a parent homeschooled a child, is economically disadvantaged, was charged with certain nonviolent misdemeanors, sought more than one medical opinion, changed a child’s medical provider, declined immunization for reasons of conscience, or allowed age-appropriate independent activities. The statute also addresses situations involving prescribed low-THC cannabis and decisions about psychotropic medication or psychiatric treatment, unless the choice creates serious risk or observable harm as described by law.
In plain English, Texas courts must look deeper than labels. Being poor is not the same as being unfit. Asking for another medical opinion is not the same as endangering a child. A parenting choice may still be reviewed in context, but §161.001(c) makes clear that these facts alone do not meet the high burden required for termination.
In straightforward situations, this protection may help separate real statutory grounds from unfair assumptions. In more complex cases, the court may still consider the full evidence, including the child’s safety, emotional well-being, medical needs, and best interest. The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps Texas families understand these distinctions, including parents seeking guidance from a San Antonio termination attorney, so they can respond with clarity instead of fear.
Where Each Related Question Belongs
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas focuses on the statutory reasons a court may consider, but many related questions belong in their own lane. A parent trying to understand termination should separate the ground alleged, the evidence required, the child’s best interest, and the legal effect of any final order.
A private case to end another parent’s rights is different from a CPS or Department case. Voluntary relinquishment is different from involuntary termination. A stepparent adoption may involve termination, but adoption has its own legal steps. Keeping those topics separate helps families understand the right issue instead of mixing several serious legal questions together.
The child’s best interest also deserves its own discussion because a statutory ground alone is not enough. Texas courts still look at the child’s safety, stability, emotional needs, caregiving history, permanency plan, and the facts surrounding each parent. That is why a case involving abandonment may be analyzed differently from one involving endangerment, criminal conduct, or a signed relinquishment affidavit.
For families in The Woodlands, Houston, Harris County, and across Texas, The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps parents connect the right question to the right legal path. Our Woodlands parental rights guidance explains how parental rights issues may fit into custody, support, adoption, CPS, and termination matters.
Unsure which ground is alleged?
Bring the petition and any orders in the case. A Texas family-law attorney can identify the subdivision pleaded and explain what it requires.
Legal Resources
Legal research note: This page was checked against the current official text of Texas Family Code Section 161.001, as amended through 2025, and Section 101.007, and against the Supreme Court of Texas’s opinion in In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S. The authorities were last checked on October 7, 2026.
- Texas Family Code Chapter 161 — official text, including Section 161.001(a)–(g) and its amendment history. Official text.
- Texas Family Code Chapter 101 — official text, including Section 101.007 (clear and convincing evidence). Official text.
- In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S., No. 24-0307 (Tex. June 5, 2026) — Department case: the best-interest requirement has independent force; both findings are required. Official Texas Supreme Court opinion.
Meet Kimberly P. Washington
Attorney Routing
Kimberly P. Washington
Senior Managing Attorney
Kimberly Washington has been with the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC since 2015 and provides senior legal leadership in Texas family-law matters, including divorce, child custody, and mediation. When a petition alleges a ground for termination, the exact subdivision pleaded and the evidence behind it are where she will start.
Licensed by the State Bar of Texas since 2008 · Juris Doctor, Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Conclusion:
Understanding Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Texas starts with one important truth: termination is permanent, and Texas courts do not treat it like a shortcut around family conflict. A parent’s rights can be ended only when the law supports a statutory ground, the evidence meets the clear and convincing standard, and termination is found to be in the child’s best interest.
In straightforward situations, the next step may be reading the petition carefully, identifying the ground alleged, and understanding what evidence the court will expect. In more complex cases, the issues may involve CPS, abandonment, endangerment, substance abuse claims, criminal history, prior termination findings, stepparent adoption, unpaid support, or disputed facts. Those details matter because the legal strategy can change quickly.
At The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC, we believe families make better decisions when they understand the law before they act. Our mission is to educate families, protect futures, and help parents regain clarity during serious custody and parental-rights matters. For families in Shenandoah, Houston, Harris County, and across Texas, our termination of parental rights guidance in Shenandoah can help you better understand how statutory grounds, evidence, and best interest fit together.
About the Author
Bryan Fagan
Founder, Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC
Texas Divorce & Family Law Attorney · Licensed in Texas Since 2012
Bryan Fagan founded the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC in 2012. His work includes Texas family-law strategy, firmwide leadership, team-based case planning, and client education designed to help families understand their legal options and make informed decisions.
Juris Doctor, South Texas College of Law, 2011 · Licensed by the State Bar of Texas May 4, 2012 · Bar No. 24080889
About the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC
The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps Texas families understand and navigate family-law issues involving divorce, child custody, possession and access, and related matters. Founded by Bryan Fagan in 2012, the firm combines legal representation with education designed to give families clearer information about their options and the decisions ahead.
This page provides general information about the statutory grounds for ending a parent’s rights in Texas. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. How these rules apply depends on the ground alleged, the evidence, the governing statutes and the individual facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The current official list of grounds in Section 161.001 no longer includes the former service-plan ground, although older pages and mirrors may still show it. Department cases carry separate statutory requirements, such as the findings in Section 161.001(f), and they are covered by our CPS defense team’s guide.
No. Proving a ground is only half of what the statute requires. The court must also find, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). The Supreme Court of Texas has described that finding as having independent force.
Clear and convincing evidence, for both the ground and best interest. Section 101.007 defines that standard as the degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
Several grounds involve leaving or abandoning a child, and each has different elements: subdivisions (A), (B), (C), (G) and (H), and, when the child is in the Department’s managing conservatorship, constructive abandonment under (N). Which one applies depends on the facts alleged and proved.
Not in those words. Subdivision (F) requires a failure to support the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a one-year period ending within six months of the date the petition was filed. Ability to pay is part of the ground, and best interest must still be proved.
Yes. Subdivision (K) makes an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment a ground, signed before or after the suit is filed, and the court must still find best interest. How those affidavits work, including revocation, is covered on our affidavit page rather than here.
