Texas Appellate Court Affirms Parental Termination, Clarifies Preservation Requirements for Reasonable Efforts Findings
Opinion by Justice Antú, 14-25-00696-CV, February 10, 2026.
On appeal from the 306th District Court of Galveston County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a parent must timely object or request additional findings in the trial court to preserve a complaint regarding the specificity of findings required by Family Code Section 161.001(f) and (g). The court further affirmed that a parent’s criminal history and community supervision violations constitute sufficient evidence of endangering conduct under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), even when the parent was incarcerated at the time of the child’s removal.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision serves as a critical reminder that statutory mandates for “specific findings” are not self-executing for purposes of appellate review. Even when the Family Code requires the trial court to describe specific “continuing dangers” preventing a child’s return, the burden remains on the practitioner to preserve error through the traditional mechanisms of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 298 and 299. For litigators, this case also underscores the expansive reach of “endangering conduct” under Ground (E), confirming that juvenile adjudications and parole violations—separate from the conduct that led to the child’s removal—can satisfy the “course of conduct” requirement for termination.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department of Family and Protective Services removed one-year-old “Patty” following reports of neglect and sexual abuse involving her maternal grandmother’s boyfriend. At the time of removal, Mother was in county jail and Father was incarcerated in TDCJ. Father’s incarceration stemmed from a parole violation related to juvenile aggravated robbery adjudications. Additionally, Father had been placed on deferred adjudication for evading arrest with a vehicle shortly after Patty’s birth but was unsatisfactorily discharged from that supervision. While the Department was unable to provide in-person services due to TDCJ restrictions, it mailed a family service plan to Father. Father remained incarcerated throughout the proceedings, with a projected release date in late 2026. The trial court terminated Father’s rights under grounds (E) and (Q).
Issues Decided
- Whether Father waived his challenge to the trial court’s failure to provide specific findings regarding the “continuing danger” in the home under Section 161.001(f) and (g).
- Whether the Department made “reasonable efforts” to return the child when the parent was incarcerated and limited to mail-based service plans.
- Whether Father’s criminal history and community supervision violations provided sufficient evidence of endangering conduct under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E).
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code Section 161.001(f) and (g), which requires trial courts to describe with specificity the efforts made by the Department and the continuing dangers in the home. However, the court balanced this against Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 298 and 299, which govern the preservation of error regarding omitted or deficient findings of fact. For the sufficiency challenge, the court applied the “clear and convincing” standard under In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019), and focused on the “course of conduct” analysis inherent in Section 161.001(b)(1)(E).
Application
The court first addressed the procedural hurdle of preservation. Although the appeal was initially abated for findings, the court found that Father failed to object to the specificity of the findings once the record was supplemented. Because Father did not request additional or amended findings in the trial court, he could not complain of the trial court’s lack of detail for the first time on appeal. On the merits of Ground (E), the court rejected the notion that Father’s incarceration shielded him from an endangerment finding. The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances,” noting that Father’s juvenile history of aggravated robbery and his adult failure to comply with community supervision for evading arrest demonstrated a persistent course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical and emotional well-being. Finally, the court found the Department’s efforts were “reasonable” under the circumstances, noting that TDCJ restrictions—not Departmental apathy—prevented more robust service implementation.
Holding
The court held that a party must request additional findings or object to the trial court’s failure to make specific findings under Section 161.001(f) and (g) to preserve the issue for appellate review. Because Father did not utilize these procedural vehicles, his first issue was overruled as unpreserved.
The court further held that a parent’s criminal trajectory, including juvenile adjudications and subsequent parole or community supervision violations, provides a sufficient basis for an endangering conduct finding under Ground (E). The court affirmed the termination, concluding that Father’s inability to remain out of custody and his history of violent offenses supported a firm belief that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Practical Application
For appellate preservation, practitioners must treat the 2023 amendments to Section 161.001 as “findings of fact” subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure. If the termination order lacks the “specificity” required by subsections (f) and (g), you must file a request for additional or amended findings or risk waiving the error. From a trial perspective, this case signals that “reasonable efforts” findings are highly deferential to the Department when the parent is incarcerated; simple mail correspondence may suffice if the Department can show prison regulations barred further interaction.
Checklists
Preserving Challenges to Specificity Findings
- Review the Amended Order or Final Judgment immediately for compliance with Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(f) and (g).
- File a Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within 20 days of the judgment.
- If the court’s findings lack the requisite “description of the continuing danger,” file a Request for Additional or Amended Findings within 10 days of the initial findings.
- Explicitly cite Section 161.001(f) and (g) in your request to put the trial court on notice of the statutory deficiency.
Contesting Ground (E) Based on Criminal History
- Analyze the timing of the criminal conduct; distinguish between pre-birth conduct and conduct occurring during the child’s life.
- Challenge the nexus between juvenile adjudications and current parenting abilities if the offenses are remote.
- Document every effort made to comply with the service plan while incarcerated (e.g., requesting classes, correspondence with the caseworker) to rebut the “course of conduct” of endangerment.
Citation
In the Interest of P.Y., a Child, No. 14-25-00696-CV, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 10, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~0620161b-26e0-4649-94f3-c2222b331cdc~~
Share this content:
