A 2025 Fort Worth Court of Appeals decision—In the Interest of Z.D., provides critical guidance for understanding how Texas courts balance parental rights with child protection when substance abuse is involved.
Per the published opinion, the case involves a father with a documented methamphetamine history seeking to regain unsupervised custody of his infant son after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services intervened. The appellate court’s decision clarifies what evidence courts need to impose supervised visitation and when parental drug use creates barriers to conservatorship. For Dallas-area residents facing child custody cases involving substance abuse concerns, whether as the accused parent or the concerned co-parent, understanding these legal standards is essential. A trusted Dallas child custody lawyer with experience in DFPS matters can help you navigate these complex proceedings.
Case Background: Substance Abuse, Child Removal, and Custody Determination
In October 2023, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition seeking protection, conservatorship, and termination of parental rights for three children, including A., who was only a few months old. The petition alleged that when A. was born in August 2023, both he and his father, referred to as F. in court documents, tested positive for methamphetamine.
The circumstances leading to removal were serious. In September 2023, after F.’s hair follicle test came back positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine, he declined to cooperate with the Department. In October 2023, after A.’s mother attempted to leave the state with all three children and the resulting confrontation prompted police intervention for domestic disturbance, the Department removed all children due to concerns about drug use, domestic violence, and lack of protective caregivers.
The trial court appointed the Department as temporary sole managing conservator. Maternal Grandmother later filed to intervene seeking managing conservatorship of all three children. By December 2023, the trial court had appointed Maternal Grandparents as temporary possessory conservators, and all children were placed with them.
At trial in January 2025, nearly fifteen months after removal, evidence showed that F. had tested positive for methamphetamine on multiple occasions and negative on others. Critically, the jury heard that F. had been unsuccessfully discharged from drug treatment programs three times and that his last discharge occurred in December 2024, one month before trial, with a recommendation for inpatient treatment. After a two-day jury trial, the jury found it was in all three children’s best interest to appoint Maternal Grandmother as their managing conservator, with F. receiving only supervised possessory conservatorship.
Legal Analysis: Drug Use, Child Endangerment, and Supervision Requirements
The Legal Standard for Drug Use and Child Endangerment
Texas courts apply specific legal standards when evaluating whether a parent’s drug use endangers a child or significantly impairs the child’s physical health or emotional development. Under Texas Family Code § 153.131(a), parents shall be appointed sole or joint managing conservators “unless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.”
The appellate court emphasized that while “illegal drug use alone may not be sufficient to show endangerment, a pattern of drug use accompanied by circumstances that indicate related dangers to the child can establish a substantial risk of harm.” This is an important distinction: isolated incidents of drug use may not meet the threshold, but ongoing patterns paired with contextual factors can demonstrate significant impairment risk.
Methamphetamine as a Specific Danger
The court identified methamphetamine specifically as posing “an immediate danger to a child’s physical health and safety.” This recognition reflects both medical understanding and case law recognizing that methamphetamine use creates unique dangers: the drug affects judgment, increases aggression, causes paranoia, and creates an unsafe home environment even when the child is not directly exposed to the drug itself.
A permanency specialist testified that when a primary caregiver is under the influence of mind-altering substances, especially methamphetamine, a young child could be in grave danger. She explained that continuing drug use indicates an inability or unwillingness to prioritize parenting responsibilities, responsibilities incompatible with caring for a very young, vulnerable child like A., who at trial was only seventeen months old and completely dependent on his caregiver.
The Role of Treatment Program Failures
F. had attended multiple drug treatment programs but was unsuccessfully discharged from three separate programs. This history of treatment failure constituted evidence that a reasonable factfinder could determine F. would continue to endanger A.. The court cited another case, holding that “Given [the parent’s] long standing history of narcotics use … and [the parent’s] failure to stay off narcotics despite [prior] drug rehabilitation programs, a reasonable trier of fact could have determined that [the parent] would continue to endanger [the child].”
The Department’s recommendation in December 2024 that F. complete an inpatient program, made one month before trial, further supported inference of continuing danger. F. testified he last used methamphetamine in June 2024 and intended to continue treatment, but the jury did not believe him. As the court noted, the jury as factfinder is entitled to believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony.
Temporal Proximity to Trial and Ongoing Use
The court emphasized the significance that F. had tested positive for methamphetamine in September 2024—just three months before trial. Additionally, F. failed to complete requested urinalyses in July, August, September, and October 2024, which the Department presumed as presumptively positive tests. This recent and ongoing drug use, despite the case being pending for fifteen months and despite F. knowing his methamphetamine use was an impediment to unsupervised possession, demonstrated that F. continued endangering A. even with the incentive of custody at stake.
The Vulnerability Factor
A.’s age and complete dependence on his caregiver amplified the endangerment analysis. A permanency specialist explained that A., at seventeen months old, could not provide for himself, could not feed himself, and remained in diapers. He was completely dependent on his caregiver to keep him safe. A caregiver under the influence of methamphetamine or subject to the cognitive and behavioral effects of ongoing drug use cannot reliably provide this protection.
Legal Sufficiency Standard for Jury Verdicts
The appellate court applied the legal sufficiency standard of review: whether more than a scintilla of probative evidence supports the jury’s finding. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict that appointing F. as managing conservator would significantly impair A.’s physical health or emotional development.
The evidence included: (1) F.’s positive tests for methamphetamine, (2) his recent positive hair test in September 2024, (3) his failure to complete urinalyses in four months preceding trial, (4) his inability to successfully complete three separate drug treatment programs, (5) the Department’s recommendation for inpatient treatment one month before trial, (6) his ongoing use despite fifteen months of pending case and clear knowledge that drug use impeded custody, and (7) A.’s extreme vulnerability at seventeen months old.
Supervised Visitation: The Appropriate Remedy
F. challenged the supervised visitation restriction, arguing it exceeded what was necessary to protect A.’s best interests under Texas Family Code § 153.193. The appellate court rejected this challenge. § 153.193 provides that restrictions on parental possession “may not exceed those that are required to protect the best interest of the child.”
However, the court concluded supervised visitation did not exceed necessary restrictions. Given F.’s documented drug use, treatment program failures, recent positive tests, and A.ls complete vulnerability, requiring all possession to be supervised by Paternal Grandmother or another competent adult was not an abuse of discretion. The supervised-visitation restriction “exceeded what was required to protect A.’s best interest” was simply incorrect; the restriction was proportionate to the documented danger.
Key Takeaways for Dallas-Area Families
Drug use patterns with contextual danger create significant barriers to unsupervised custody. A single positive test might not end custody prospects, but ongoing use combined with treatment failures, recent tests, and the child’s age creates substantial impairment risk that courts will not overlook.
Courts distinguish between isolated use and patterns. Texas law recognizes that people can make mistakes and recover. However, persistent use despite consequences, especially when those consequences include pending custody proceedings, demonstrates unwillingness to prioritize parenting.
Methamphetamine carries heightened judicial concern. Courts recognize methamphetamine’s unique dangers and the impairment it causes even when not used around children. Courts need not wait for a child to be injured; endangerment risk suffices.
Treatment program failure matters. Successfully completing treatment demonstrates commitment. Multiple unsuccessful discharges, especially with recommendations for more intensive treatment, indicate ongoing inability to abstain.
Young children receive heightened protection. Infants and toddlers who cannot communicate, cannot escape danger, and cannot meet their own needs receive special legal protection. Courts rarely award unsupervised custody to parents with active substance abuse issues when children are this young and vulnerable.
Strategic Insights: What Experienced Representation Provides
Different approaches might have affected this case’s procedural aspects and presentation. Alternative strategies might have included: F. completing inpatient treatment well before trial rather than receiving a recommendation for it one month before trial; establishing negative test results over an extended period immediately preceding trial rather than sporadic compliance; engaging with court-approved monitoring programs voluntarily rather than requiring court enforcement; or seeking treatment through specialized courts or programs specifically designed for parents involved in DFPS cases.
A best divorce lawyer in Dallas experienced in DFPS matters understands that when substance abuse is involved, courts respond powerfully to evidence of sustained commitment to sobriety and treatment compliance, particularly in the months immediately preceding trial.
What This Means for Your Family Law Matter
If you’re involved in a DFPS case or custody dispute involving substance abuse, whether you’re the parent concerned about your ex-partner’s drug use or the parent working to overcome your own substance abuse issues, understanding these legal standards is critical. Courts will not automatically strip parents of custody based on drug use, but they will impose meaningful restrictions when that use creates documented endangerment risk to young children.
Contact our office for a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation. With 25+ years of family law experience including DFPS matters, we provide honest assessments of how substance abuse affects custody determinations. We serve Dallas and surrounding areas including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, and beyond.
Whether you need a Dallas family law attorney to help protect a child from substance-abuse dangers or to navigate recovery and custody restoration after your own substance use, we approach these sensitive matters with both strategic clarity and genuine compassion. We understand the complexities involved, both the judicial system’s legitimate child protection concerns and the human reality that recovery is possible.
Your family’s safety and your child’s wellbeing are paramount. Let us help you navigate these proceedings with realistic expectations about what courts require and what paths forward are available.
