The Holley factors in Texas are nine considerations the Texas Supreme Court set out in its 1976 decision Holley v. Adams for deciding what arrangement serves a child’s best interest. Judges apply them in custody disputes, visitation disagreements, modifications, and proceedings to terminate parental rights. No single factor decides the case, and courts can weigh other circumstances alongside the nine.
The Nine Factors
The Texas Supreme Court listed these considerations for evaluating a child’s best interest:1Justia. Holley v. Adams
- The child’s own wishes. These carry more weight as the child gets older. A teenager’s stated preference means far more than a toddler’s, though neither is automatically decisive.
- The child’s emotional and physical needs now and in the future. This covers daily care, nutrition, emotional support, and developmental needs, and who has been meeting them.
- Emotional and physical danger now and in the future. Any risk of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, or substance abuse in either home falls here, along with exposure to dangerous people or environments.
- Parental abilities. This looks at each person’s capacity to raise the child, including patience, judgment, and willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.
- Programs available to help. Counseling, parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and other resources a parent is using or could use.
- Plans for the child. Concrete plans for education, healthcare, religious upbringing, and daily life. Vague promises carry less weight than specific, realistic arrangements.
- Stability of the home. The physical environment, consistency of routines, and how long the child has lived in the current setting. Frequent moves or chaotic households work against you.
- Acts or omissions suggesting the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one. Prolonged absence, failure to provide support, or leaving the child in unsafe situations.
- Excuses for those acts or omissions. A parent who missed visits during military deployment is evaluated differently from one who simply stopped showing up.
How Judges Actually Weigh Them
The factors are not a scorecard where the parent who “wins” more categories takes custody. The analysis is holistic, and one factor can outweigh several others depending on the facts. A parent who provides a stable, loving home will not lose custody solely because the other parent earns more. Evidence of serious danger to the child, on the other hand, can override strong performance on every other factor.
The list is also not exhaustive. Courts can consider anything relevant to the child’s well-being, including a parent’s criminal history, the child’s bond with siblings in a particular household, or the geographic distance between homes.1Justia. Holley v. Adams Families are complicated, and the court needs room to account for circumstances that don’t fit a list.
One practical reality: the child’s existing living arrangement carries real inertia. If a child has been stable and thriving in one home for an extended period, judges are reluctant to disrupt that. The stability factor does much of its work here, and it’s a reason temporary orders at the start of a case matter so much.
Where the Factors Apply
Texas family cases involving children are filed as a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, which covers conservatorship, visitation, child support, and the establishment or termination of the parent-child relationship.2State of Texas. Texas Family Code 101.032 – Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship In all of them, the child’s best interest is the court’s primary concern.3State of Texas. Texas Family Code 153.002 – Best Interest of Child
Conservatorship and Possession
Most custody disputes turn on conservatorship, which decides who makes major decisions about the child’s life, and possession, which sets the actual schedule of time each parent has. In these cases, the court applies a preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning the judge decides based on what is more likely than not to be true.4State of Texas. Texas Family Code 105.005 – Burden of Proof The Holley factors guide where the child lives, how time is divided, and which parent holds decision-making authority over education, healthcare, and other major areas.
Termination of Parental Rights
Termination cases work differently. Because the result permanently severs all legal ties between parent and child, the court must find clear and convincing evidence on two separate prongs: first, that the parent engaged in specific conduct listed in the statute, such as abandonment, endangerment, or certain criminal convictions; and second, that ending the relationship is in the child’s best interest.5State of Texas. Texas Family Code 161.206 – Order Terminating Parental Rights Clear and convincing evidence is a much higher bar than preponderance. It means the evidence must produce a firm belief or conviction in the judge’s mind.
The Holley factors carry enormous weight in the second prong. Even where the evidence of a parent’s misconduct is strong, the court must still separately evaluate whether termination actually benefits the child. Judges apply the factors with heightened scrutiny here because a termination order cannot be undone.
One boundary worth knowing: when the case involves an Indian child under federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act imposes additional requirements that override the standard Texas analysis, including a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for termination.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 25 USC 1912 – Pending Court Proceedings If ICWA applies, the whole framework changes.
Building Evidence Around the Factors
The most effective approach is to organize your evidence so it speaks to the specific Holley factors that matter most in your case. You don’t need a strong showing on all nine. Focus where you have the clearest advantage or where the other side is weakest.
On the child’s physical and emotional needs, school records and attendance logs show academic stability and engagement. Medical records and immunization history demonstrate consistent healthcare. Therapist notes can speak to the child’s emotional state in each home. If the child is old enough to have expressed a preference, the judge may speak with the child privately in chambers.
On danger and safety, police reports, protective order records, CPS investigation findings, and documented drug or alcohol issues provide objective evidence. Photos and videos of living conditions can show stability or hazard. Text messages and social media posts are admissible and often decisive, especially when a parent’s public behavior contradicts their courtroom testimony.
On parental abilities and plans, completion certificates from parenting classes, evidence of involvement in school and activities, and a concrete plan for the child’s future all help. Witnesses like teachers, pediatricians, coaches, and neighbors who can describe your day-to-day parenting carry more credibility than family members, who judges expect to be biased.
On stability, lease agreements, mortgage records, employment history, and evidence of a consistent routine show the structure a child needs. Frequent moves, job changes, or a revolving door of romantic partners all undercut this factor.
When a Child Advocate Gets Appointed
In many SAPCR cases, the court appoints someone to independently investigate the child’s situation and report back on best interest. That person evaluates the Holley factors from a neutral position, and the recommendation carries real weight with the judge. Texas law provides three roles:
- A guardian ad litem investigates the child’s circumstances by interviewing the child, parents, teachers, doctors, and anyone else with relevant knowledge. The guardian ad litem must consider the child’s expressed wishes but is not bound by them.7State of Texas. Texas Family Code 107.002 – Powers and Duties of Guardian Ad Litem for Child
- An amicus attorney is a licensed attorney who assists the court in determining best interest, representing the court’s interest in a just outcome rather than what the child wants.
- An attorney ad litem represents the child as a client and advocates for the child’s expressed wishes, even if the attorney personally disagrees.
In private custody disputes, these appointments are discretionary. The judge may appoint one if needed to properly evaluate the child’s best interest, after considering the parties’ ability to pay the appointee’s fees.8State of Texas. Texas Family Code 107.021 – Discretionary Appointments In private termination cases, the court must appoint an amicus attorney or attorney ad litem unless someone already in the case adequately represents the child.
Modifying an Existing Custody Order
A final custody order is not necessarily permanent. Texas law allows modification when circumstances have materially and substantially changed since the order was signed, and the proposed change would serve the child’s best interest.9State of Texas. Texas Family Code 156.101 – Grounds for Modification of Order Establishing Conservatorship or Possession and Access The Holley factors apply to that best interest analysis just as they do in the original case.
The change must be significant and ongoing, not temporary frustration with the current arrangement. Relocation to another city, a serious change in the child’s medical or educational needs, or new household dynamics like a remarriage that introduces safety concerns can all qualify. A judge will not revisit the order simply because you’re unhappy with the schedule or your ex’s lifestyle choices, unless those choices directly harm the child.
Two alternative grounds don’t require a changed circumstance. If the child is at least 12, they can tell the judge in chambers which parent they want to live with, and that alone can support a modification. If the parent with primary custody has voluntarily given up day-to-day care to someone else for at least six months, the court can modify without any other showing.9State of Texas. Texas Family Code 156.101 – Grounds for Modification of Order Establishing Conservatorship or Possession and Access
Filing within one year of the current order is harder. You generally must show through a sworn affidavit that the child’s present environment poses a serious risk to their physical health or emotional development. The higher bar exists to prevent parents from relitigating custody every few months.