When a parent faces incarceration during a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation, questions about maintaining contact with children become critically important. Can writing letters satisfy the requirement to maintain “significant contact”? Does completing substance abuse treatment in prison count as complying with a family service plan? These questions directly impact whether parental rights can be terminated, and a recent San Antonio Court of Appeals decision provides crucial guidance for parents navigating these challenges.
Per the published opinion, the case In the Interest of G.M.M. (2025 WL 2458625), decided August 27, 2025, reversed a trial court’s termination of parental rights, finding that a mother’s 25 letters to her child during nine months of incarceration constituted sufficient contact to prevent termination. The appellate court also ruled that completing individual counseling through a prison substance abuse program satisfied the mother’s family service plan requirements, even though CPS argued it didn’t specifically address “mental health.” For Dallas families working with a Dallas divorce attorney or facing CPS involvement, this decision clarifies important protections for incarcerated parents and highlights the strict standards courts must apply before severing the parent-child relationship.
Case Background: When Domestic Violence Leads to CPS Involvement
The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated this termination case in January 2024 after learning about a physical altercation between the mother and the child’s grandmother, E.D., which occurred in the child G.M.M.’s presence in June 2023. This incident would have cascading consequences that eventually led to a two-day trial over a year later.
The Department had difficulty locating the mother initially. When investigators finally made contact on January 17, 2024, the mother attempted to flee with G.M.M., resulting in her arrest. Law enforcement discovered a methamphetamine pipe on her person during the arrest. According to investigator testimony, the mother “refused to follow through” with establishing a safety plan, leading the Department to remove G.M.M. and place the child with grandmother E.D.
Six months into the CPS case, the mother was arrested and charged with aggravated assault related to the altercation with E.D. She accepted a plea agreement that resulted in deferred adjudication and ten years of probation. As a condition of probation, the mother was required to enter the Texas Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFP), an in-patient substance abuse treatment program housed within a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prison facility.
The mother testified that she successfully completed the in-patient portion of SAFP. However, she was subsequently reincarcerated due to an alleged probation violation in a separate criminal case. At the time of trial, the mother remained incarcerated without a scheduled release date and did not know when or whether her probation would be reinstated.
The trial took place over two days, January 15, 2025, and March 14, 2025, in the 407th Judicial District Court in Bexar County. The Department introduced five documents and called four witnesses, though only two exhibits and three witnesses related to the mother’s case. Working with an experienced Dallas child custody lawyer can help parents understand what evidence CPS will present and how to effectively counter the Department’s case.
The Mother’s Efforts: Visitation, Letters, and Treatment Compliance
The evidence presented at trial painted a more complex picture than the Department’s termination petition suggested. The mother’s caseworker, testified that before incarceration, the mother attended “almost every single” scheduled virtual visit with G.M.M. The record showed that scheduling in-person visits proved difficult due to the distance between the mother’s home and G.M.M.’s placement with the grandmother.
The caseworker testified that the last virtual visitation occurred “right before her incarceration.” Once the Department learned about a no-contact order between the mother and E.D. (the child’s placement), it stopped scheduling virtual visits. The Department then directed the mother to write letters to G.M.M. instead.
During the nine months of incarceration leading up to trial, the mother wrote 25 letters to her child. The record established, without contest, that these letters were “appropriate, loving, and positive.” This consistent effort to maintain contact through the only means available would become central to the appellate court’s analysis.
Regarding the family service plan requirements, the mother’s caseworker acknowledged that she could not verify whether the mother completed all requirements while in SAFP. However, the case worker confirmed that the mother completed individual counseling during SAFP, attending sessions once per week. The caseworker’s primary objection was that this counseling focused on “substance abuse and anger management” rather than the mother’s “mental health,” and therefore didn’t satisfy the family service plan.
The mother testified about what she learned through SAFP counseling: anger management, coping skills, identifying life triggers, developing better response plans for future interactions, thought-stopping processes, and breathing techniques. These topics directly related to the domestic violence incident that initiated CPS involvement. For parents working with a Dallas family law attorney, understanding how courts evaluate service plan compliance, particularly when circumstances like incarceration affect how services are delivered, can be crucial to preserving parental rights.
The Trial Court’s Termination Order: Focus on Incarceration and Contact
At the conclusion of trial, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights based on two statutory grounds: Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O). The trial court’s reasoning highlighted concerns about the mother’s incarceration without a scheduled release date and the active no-contact order with G.M.M.’s grandmother.
Under subsection (N), the court found that although the mother wrote 25 letters while incarcerated, this was insufficient to maintain “significant contact” with G.M.M. The court essentially concluded that letters alone couldn’t satisfy the statutory requirement for maintaining significant contact with the child.
Under subsection (O), the trial court found that the mother’s failure to engage in individual counseling prior to her incarceration was sufficient grounds for termination. The court apparently discounted the individual counseling the mother completed while in SAFP, possibly agreeing with the caseworker’s position that it didn’t adequately address “mental health” issues.
The trial court also appointed the Department as permanent managing conservator of G.M.M. pursuant to Texas Family Code section 153.371. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting both the subsection (N) and (O) findings.
Legal Framework: Clear and Convincing Evidence in Termination Cases
The San Antonio Court of Appeals began its analysis by emphasizing the heightened standards that apply in parental termination cases. Because of the gravity of permanently severing the parent-child relationship, Texas law requires “clear and convincing evidence” to support termination findings, a higher burden than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used in most civil cases.
This heightened burden also elevates the appellate court’s review standards. As the court explained, citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002), the reviewing court must determine “whether the evidence is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the [Department]’s allegations.”
The court outlined two types of sufficiency review:
Legal sufficiency review examines whether, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and considering undisputed contrary evidence, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 630-31 (Tex. 2018).
Factual sufficiency review directly confronts disputed or contrary evidence to determine whether it would prevent a reasonable factfinder from forming a firm belief or conviction that the finding is true. In re A.L.S., 660 S.W.3d 257, 263 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, pet. denied).
These exacting standards reflect the fundamental principle that parental rights deserve the highest protection under law. Anyone facing CPS involvement should consult with a knowledgeable divorce lawyer in Dallas who understands both family law and the heightened scrutiny courts apply in termination cases.
Subsection (N) Analysis: Can Letters Constitute “Significant Contact”?
Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(N) allows termination when: (1) the child has been in Department conservatorship for at least six months; (2) the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child; (3) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and (4) the parent demonstrated an inability to provide a safe environment.
The appellate court focused on the third element, whether the mother maintained significant contact. Texas courts have held that “a parent fails to regularly visit or maintain significant contact with the child if the parent fails to take advantage of the visitation rights or if the visits are intermittent or sporadic.” In re J.I.P., 2021 WL 1269913, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 7, 2021).
Crucially, the court recognized that while incarceration makes maintaining contact difficult, “it is not impossible.” In re D.S.A., 113 S.W.3d 567, 574 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003). The D.S.A. court observed that “while the child may not be able to live with the parent in a jail cell, it would seem that the parent could nonetheless pursue a significant relationship with the [child] through, at the very least, written correspondence.”
The San Antonio court examined the mother’s efforts both before and after incarceration. Before incarceration, she attended “almost every single” scheduled virtual visit, with in-person visits being difficult only due to distance. After incarceration—and after the Department stopped scheduling virtual visits due to the no-contact order, the mother wrote 25 appropriate, loving, and positive letters over nine months.
The appellate court concluded that “because Mother took full advantage of her visitation rights before incarceration and maintained significant contact with G.M.M. through letters during her incarceration, a reasonable factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or conviction that Mother failed to regularly visit or maintain significant contact with G.M.M.”
This holding provides important protection for incarcerated parents. The court essentially ruled that consistent letter-writing, when it’s the only available means of contact—can satisfy the “significant contact” requirement and prevent termination under subsection (N).
Subsection (O) Analysis: Technical Compliance vs. Substantial Compliance
Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(O) permits termination when a parent fails to comply with a court order specifically establishing actions necessary to obtain the child’s return, where the child has been in Department conservatorship for at least nine months as a result of removal for abuse or neglect.
The court noted that “Texas courts generally take a strict approach to subsection (O)’s application,” citing In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d 258, 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). However, the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re R.J.G., 681 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. 2023), established critical limitations on how subsection (O) can be applied.
Under R.J.G., termination under subsection (O) cannot be based on: (1) plan requirements that are unwritten and supplied only by caseworker testimony; (2) requirements that are written but vague; or (3) a parent’s “technical noncompliance.” Id. at 373, 382. The Supreme Court gave as an example of technical noncompliance a situation where “the plan requires a parent to attend classes with a specified service provider and the parent goes elsewhere.” Id. at 382.
The family service plan in this case required the mother to “actively engage in counseling” with a specified provider, “regularly attend and actively participate in individual counseling sessions until successfully discharged by the service provider,” follow all therapist recommendations, and “demonstrate an understanding and utilization of the skills acquired during participation in counseling.”
The mother admittedly did not engage with the specified provider. However, she completed individual counseling once per week while in SAFP, focusing on anger management, coping skills, identifying triggers, response planning, thought-stopping processes, and breathing techniques. The caseworker conceded the mother attended “individual counseling” in SAFP but argued it didn’t comply with the plan because it didn’t adequately “address her mental health.”
The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive. The family service plan did not specify that “mental health” must be the primary counseling topic, nor did it provide “any particular benchmark, such as participating in a specified number of individual sessions or passing a test of any sort.” The plan simply required the mother to “engage in … regularly attend[,] and actively participate in individual counseling until successfully discharged by the service provider.”
Because the record “unequivocally established that Mother engaged in, regularly attended, and actively participated in individual counseling to successfully complete SAFP,” the court held the evidence legally insufficient to support termination under subsection (O). The court emphasized that holding otherwise “would authorize courts to measure a parent’s performance of a service plan against a previously undisclosed requirement.”
This ruling protects parents from having their rights terminated based on requirements that weren’t clearly specified in the written service plan. For anyone working with a Dallas child support lawyer or family law attorney on CPS matters, this case underscores the importance of ensuring service plans contain specific, measurable requirements rather than vague expectations that can be reinterpreted later.
Key Implications: What This Case Means for Dallas Parents Facing CPS
The G.M.M. decision establishes several important principles that affect how termination cases are evaluated in Texas:
Incarceration doesn’t automatically justify termination. While incarceration creates challenges for maintaining parent-child contact, parents who use available means, including letters, to stay connected with their children can defeat termination grounds based on failure to maintain significant contact.
Consistent effort matters more than perfect circumstances. The mother attended virtually every scheduled visit before incarceration and wrote 25 letters afterward. This pattern of consistent effort, despite difficult circumstances, demonstrated her commitment to maintaining the parent-child relationship.
Service plan compliance must be measured against written requirements. Courts cannot terminate parental rights based on unwritten expectations or after-the-fact reinterpretations of what a service plan required. If the plan doesn’t specifically require counseling to focus on “mental health” rather than substance abuse and anger management, CPS cannot later argue the parent failed to comply by addressing the wrong topics.
Substantial compliance may be sufficient even when technical details differ. Completing individual counseling through SAFP satisfied the service plan’s requirement for individual counseling, even though it wasn’t with the originally specified provider and didn’t focus on the precise topics the caseworker later deemed necessary.
For Dallas-area parents involved in CPS cases, whether in Dallas County or surrounding areas like Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, or Grand Prairie, these principles provide important protections against termination based on circumstances beyond parental control or vague service plan requirements.
Important Legislative Update: Subsection (O) Repealed
The appellate opinion includes a significant footnote: the Texas Legislature repealed subsection (O), effective September 1, 2025, through House Bill 116 passed during the 89th Legislative Session. This repeal affects all suits pending in trial courts on the effective date.
This legislative change means that after September 1, 2025, CPS cannot use failure to comply with a family service plan as a standalone ground for termination. Parents can still face termination under other statutory grounds, including subsection (N) regarding failure to maintain contact, but the specific service-plan-noncompliance ground no longer exists.
This repeal likely reflects legislative concerns about cases like G.M.M., where courts or CPS might use vague service plan language to justify termination even when parents make substantial efforts to comply. The change provides additional protection for parents navigating the CPS system.
Alternative Approaches: Building Stronger Records in CPS Cases
While we must respect the decisions made by all parties in this case, examining alternative approaches provides valuable insights for parents currently facing CPS involvement. These observations focus on what we’ve learned from the case rather than criticizing any particular party’s decisions.
Documenting all compliance efforts in real time. When circumstances prevent perfect compliance with a service plan—such as when incarceration limits access to specified providers, creating contemporaneous documentation of alternative efforts becomes crucial. The mother’s testimony about her SAFP counseling was powerful, but written records from SAFP documenting the specific topics addressed and skills learned might have made the evidence even stronger.
Requesting service plan modifications when circumstances change. When a parent enters a treatment program like SAFP that addresses many of the same issues as the original service plan, formally requesting modification of the plan to recognize this alternative path to compliance could prevent later disputes about whether requirements were met. A Dallas divorce lawyer consultation can help parents understand when and how to request such modifications.
Maximizing all available contact opportunities. The mother’s 25 letters over nine months demonstrated strong effort, but the appellate decision might have been even more straightforward with additional documentation, such as saving copies of all letters sent, requesting confirmation of delivery, or seeking other approved communication methods if available.
Clarifying vague service plan language early. When a service plan contains potentially ambiguous requirements—such as “individual counseling” without specifying topics or providers, requesting clarification before beginning services can prevent later arguments about whether compliance was adequate. If CPS wants counseling to focus specifically on mental health rather than substance abuse, that should be stated explicitly in the written plan.
Addressing no-contact orders proactively. The no-contact order between the mother and E.D. (the child’s placement) created an obstacle to visitation. Working with the criminal court to modify such orders when they interfere with parent-child contact, or seeking alternative placement that wouldn’t trigger no-contact issues, might have prevented the cessation of virtual visits.
Preparing for best interest findings. Although the appellate court reversed the termination without reaching the best interest analysis, trial courts must find both a statutory ground for termination AND that termination serves the child’s best interest. Building evidence about the parent-child bond, the child’s needs, and the parent’s ability to meet those needs remains important even when focusing on defeating statutory grounds.
Why Experience Matters: CPS Cases Require Specialized Knowledge
The G.M.M. case demonstrates why CPS termination cases require attorneys with specific experience in this area of law. The case turned on nuanced legal standards, the difference between “significant contact” and perfect visitation, the distinction between technical noncompliance and substantial compliance, and the strict construction required under R.J.G, that might not be apparent to attorneys who primarily practice in other areas.
With over 25 years of experience practicing family law in Dallas, our firm has handled numerous CPS cases and understands the unique challenges they present. We know that these cases require a fundamentally different approach than private custody disputes. The stakes are higher, the timelines are compressed, and the evidentiary standards demand meticulous attention to building a complete record.
Our approach in CPS cases emphasizes several key strategies:
Early intervention makes a difference. The earlier we become involved, the better we can document compliance efforts, identify potential service plan problems, and build evidence that supports family reunification rather than termination.
Honest assessment of challenges and realistic planning. We don’t make promises about guaranteed outcomes, but we do provide clear guidance about what courts will expect and how to meet those expectations despite difficult circumstances like incarceration.
Coordinating across multiple legal proceedings. When parents face criminal charges alongside CPS involvement, as the mother did in G.M.M., coordinating strategy across both cases becomes essential. Plea agreements, probation conditions, and treatment program participation all affect the CPS case, requiring thoughtful planning.
Building comprehensive records that withstand appellate scrutiny. As this case demonstrates, the evidence presented at trial must be sufficient to support findings under the demanding “clear and convincing” standard. We focus on creating detailed records that document every compliance effort and counter the Department’s case.
Whether you’re in Dallas, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, Duncanville, or surrounding communities, having a divorce attorney near me who understands both the law and the local CPS procedures can make a critical difference in the outcome of your case.
Moving Forward: Protecting Your Parental Rights
If you’re facing CPS involvement or a termination proceeding, time is of the essence. Service plan deadlines are strict, and missing opportunities to demonstrate compliance can have devastating consequences. At the same time, the G.M.M. decision shows that even when circumstances create obstacles to perfect compliance, parents who make consistent, documented efforts to maintain relationships with their children and address the concerns that led to CPS involvement can successfully defend against termination.
Our firm’s approach combines aggressive advocacy with realistic assessments of your situation. We’ll work to build the strongest possible case for reunification while being honest about challenges and timelines. We understand that CPS cases involve not just legal issues but also deeply personal concerns about your relationship with your children and your family’s future.
Schedule Your Consultation Today
Don’t face CPS or a termination proceeding without experienced legal representation. Contact our office today to schedule a consultation where we can review your specific situation, explain your rights and options, and develop a strategic plan tailored to your circumstances.
As an experienced Dallas divorce attorney and family law practitioner with deep knowledge of CPS proceedings, we provide the guidance you need during this critical time. Our transparent communication style means you’ll always understand where your case stands and what steps we’re taking to protect your parental rights.
Call us today or visit our website to schedule your initial consultation. When your parental rights are at stake, having knowledgeable, experienced counsel makes all the difference.
