The case centers on B.G.A.Y., who was born on December 28, 2023, and tested positive for opioids and methadone at birth after her mother S.A. admitted to using hydrocodone before delivery. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child in December 2024 and sought termination of both parents' parental rights. At an adversary hearing in January 2025, both parents admitted to using heroin the previous day, according to testimony from Department caseworker Carlos Cadena.
Justice Fonseca rejected S.A.'s argument that termination was not in the child's best interests, noting the overwhelming evidence of drug abuse and abandonment. As Fonseca wrote, 'It is well-established that, in evaluating a child's best interest, a factfinder can give great weight to the significant factor of drug-related conduct by a parent.' The court found that S.A. had failed to complete court-ordered drug treatment, had not taken a single drug test during the conservatorship phase, and had made virtually no effort to visit her daughter.
The opinion highlighted S.A.'s complete disengagement from the case, with Cadena testifying that his communication with S.A. 'has been very sporadic throughout the case.' Cadena explained that while he attempted monthly contact via text and phone, 'for the most part, she largely didn't respond to me.' Most damning, the court noted, was that 'since the Department was named the child's conservator in January 2025, S.A. had not attempted to visit B.G.A.Y. or taken a drug test.'
The case began when the Department filed for conservatorship and termination on December 20, 2024, after B.G.A.Y. was born prematurely and tested positive for drugs. The parents were initially offered Family-Based Safety Services but were unsuccessful. While the father J.F.Y. attended five days of inpatient drug treatment before leaving, S.A. never entered treatment at all. The trial court in Nueces County granted termination in October 2025, finding predicate grounds under multiple sections of the Texas Family Code and concluding that termination served the child's best interests.
S.A.'s appeal rested on a single argument that the Department had failed to show the child was 'thriving' in foster care, noting that B.G.A.Y. had experienced 'several illnesses or minor medical issues' and was only doing 'pretty well' in placement. The appeals court firmly rejected this characterization, writing that 'even if B.G.A.Y. was not born with opioids and methadone in her system, the fact that she had several illnesses or minor medical issues in her first year of life would not be surprising, nor would it reflect negatively on the abilities of the foster parents.'
The court emphasized the child's need for permanence, citing established precedent that a child's need for a 'stable, permanent home' is the 'paramount consideration in determining best interest.' Cadena testified that B.G.A.Y. had bonded well with her foster family, referring to her caregivers as 'mama and dada' and developing a 'very, very strong bond' with a 13-year-old in the household. The foster parents, already licensed to adopt through the Department, expressed willingness to provide a permanent home for the child.
The ruling reflects the Texas courts' strict approach to parental rights termination, which Justice Fonseca described as 'the death penalty of civil cases' requiring clear and convincing evidence. However, the opinion noted that S.A. had not disputed the sufficiency of evidence for the predicate grounds of termination, including her use of controlled substances that endangered the child's health and safety. The court concluded that all evidence supported rebutting the strong presumption that keeping a child with a biological parent serves the child's best interests.