In the Interest of J.T. and J.T., Children, 10-25-00318-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from the 472nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Synopsis
The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed a termination decree, holding that the Department satisfies the “reasonable efforts” requirement of Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) by diligently pursuing court-ordered services, even when clinical barriers—specifically the “child-driven” nature of family therapy—prevent the full realization of those services. The Court emphasized that the implementation of a service plan and the provision of consistent visitation constitute sufficient evidence of reasonable efforts, notwithstanding the Department’s inability to reestablish a specific therapeutic modality prior to trial.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision solidifies the Department’s position when facing challenges to the “reasonable efforts” finding required under the 2021 amendments to the Texas Family Code. For family law practitioners, the case underscores that § 161.001(f) does not mandate the successful completion of every court-ordered service, but rather a diligent and good-faith attempt to provide them. Crucially, the Court recognizes clinical “child-driven” standards as a legitimate justification for the absence of family therapy, effectively shielding the Department from claims of statutory non-compliance when a child’s therapeutic readiness—rather than administrative neglect—dictates the timeline for reunification services.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Following a bench trial, the 472nd District Court terminated the parental rights of J.T. (Father) and C.J. (Mother) to their two children. The Father’s appeal primarily focused on the trial court’s finding under § 161.001(f), alleging that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to return the children because it did not facilitate family therapy as ordered.
The record indicated that while the Department initially implemented family therapy with a Dr. Duncan, a volatile argument occurred between the parents and an aunt during a visitation handoff. Following this incident, Dr. Duncan and the CASA supervisor determined that continuing family sessions with Dr. Duncan would jeopardize his therapeutic rapport with the child. Consequently, Dr. Duncan transitioned to individual therapy for the child, and the Department sought a new referral for family therapy. Despite following up on leads provided by the Father and contacting individual therapists, the Department was unable to reestablish family sessions. Witnesses testified that family therapy is “child-driven,” requiring the therapist to build a rapport with the child and determine readiness before integrating the parents—a stage the child had not yet reached.
Issues Decided
Whether the Department’s inability to reestablish court-ordered family therapy, due to the child’s clinical needs and the unavailability of a new provider, rendered the evidence factually insufficient to support a finding that the Department made “reasonable efforts” to return the children under Texas Family Code § 161.001(f).
Rules Applied
Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) mandates that in a suit filed by the Department, the court may not order termination unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child and that, despite those efforts, a continuing danger remains in the home.
In reviewing factual sufficiency, the Court applied the standard from In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009), requiring a determination of whether the factfinder could reasonably form a firm conviction or belief regarding the efforts made. The Court noted that the implementation of a family service plan is generally considered a reasonable effort (A.D. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 673 S.W.3d 704), though it is not the exclusive means of proof.
Application
The Court conducted a holistic review of the Department’s actions rather than focusing in isolation on the lack of family therapy. The Department had created a narrowly tailored service plan, provided and paid for various services, and maintained weekly visitation between the parents and children.
Regarding the specific failure to facilitate family therapy, the Court found that the Department’s efforts were “reasonable” under the circumstances. The Department did not simply ignore the court order; it attempted to implement the service but was thwarted by the clinical necessity of protecting the child’s individual therapeutic relationship following the parents’ misconduct at a handoff. The Court credited testimony that the Department pursued every potential lead for a new therapist and adhered to the “child-driven” protocol of the profession. The Court noted that a parent’s demand for “instant” therapy does not supersede the clinical requirements for the child’s well-being.
Holding
The Waco Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the children. The Court affirmed that the creation of a service plan and the diligent search for specialized providers satisfy the Department’s statutory burden, even if the service is not ultimately provided due to factors outside the Department’s direct control.
The Court further held that termination was in the children’s best interest, though the primary legal takeaway remains the clarification of the “reasonable efforts” standard in the face of clinical obstacles.
Practical Application
For appellate and trial counsel, this case highlights that the Department can successfully defend a “reasonable efforts” challenge by documenting the process of searching for services, even if the result is a lack of service. Practitioners representing parents must move beyond merely showing a service was not provided; they must demonstrate that the Department’s failure was due to a lack of diligence rather than clinical barriers. If the Department claims a service is “child-driven,” parents’ counsel should consider seeking an independent psychological evaluation to challenge the child’s purported lack of readiness.
Checklists
Attacking a “Reasonable Efforts” Finding
- Audit the Referral Log: Distinguish between a caseworker merely “searching” for a provider and actually making an active referral with follow-up.
- Challenge Clinical Barriers: If the Department claims a service is “child-driven,” cross-examine the child’s individual therapist to determine if a specific clinical timeline was ever established.
- Request Temporary Orders: Seek specific, time-sensitive orders for services to create a clear baseline for the Department’s “reasonableness” at the final trial.
- Document Parental Readiness: Ensure the record reflects the parent’s proactive attempts to secure their own providers when the Department fails to do so.
Defending a “Reasonable Efforts” Finding
- Maintain a Diligence Log: Document every phone call to potential providers, even those that result in a “no” or a waitlist.
- Leverage Expert Testimony: Use CASA or therapists to explain to the court why a service would be detrimental to the child at a specific point in time.
- Link Parental Conduct to Service Delays: If a parent’s behavior (like the handoff argument in this case) disrupts a therapeutic relationship, ensure that connection is clear in the record.
- Emphasize the Service Plan: Ensure the trial court’s order includes specific findings on the implementation of the plan and the provision of visitation.
Citation
In the Interest of J.T. and J.T., Children, No. 10-25-00318-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~bc8391ab-ca67-4d33-9b18-e52f8b8b3e4c~~
Share this content: