In the Interest of K.A.E.E. and K.M.-A.E., Children, 10-25-00365-CV, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), holding that a parent’s affirmative decision to return to an abusive environment and reject Department-provided safety resources constitutes clear and convincing evidence of endangerment. The court underscored that a parent’s lack of accountability regarding the impact of domestic violence on children, coupled with the violation of safety plans, provides a sufficient nexus to support both predicate grounds and the best-interest finding.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this opinion reinforces the appellate court’s scrutiny of “conduct” under Subsection (E) when a parent remains in a domestic violence environment despite being offered a viable exit strategy. In both CPS litigation and high-conflict custody disputes, this case serves as a reminder that “endangerment” does not require the child to suffer actual injury; rather, the parent’s decision to prioritize an abusive relationship over a stable environment—especially when violating a court-ordered safety plan—is a potent evidentiary tool for proving endangering conduct.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with the family following allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse. An initial incident left Mother with a black eye, prompting the Department to facilitate her relocation to a Family Abuse Shelter. Despite this intervention, Mother failed to engage with shelter services and instead returned to the motel where the Father resided. The Department attempted to assist Mother in moving to Michigan to live with relatives, but Mother rejected these resources to conceal her ongoing relationship with Father from her family.
During the pendency of the case, Mother and Father violated a safety plan that prohibited Father from having contact with the children. Unannounced visits by Department investigators revealed that Father continued to live with Mother and the children. Furthermore, both parents demonstrated a pattern of positive or missed drug tests and failed to take accountability for the psychological and physical effects of domestic violence on the children. The trial court ultimately terminated both parents’ rights under Subsections (D) and (E).
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under the predicate grounds of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).
- Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the children under the Holley factors.
Rules Applied
- Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) & (E): The statutory predicate grounds for termination based on endangering environment and endangering conduct.
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002): The standard for legal sufficiency in parental termination cases, requiring evidence that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations.
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987): Defining “endanger” as exposing a child to loss or injury or jeopardizing their well-being, noting that the conduct need not be directed at the child.
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976): The established non-exhaustive factors for determining the best interest of the child.
Application
The Tenth Court of Appeals performed a consolidated analysis of Subsections (D) and (E), as the evidence of the domestic violence environment and the parents’ conduct were inextricably linked. The court focused heavily on Mother’s rejection of the Department’s “safety net.” By refusing shelter services and rejecting the logistical support to move to Michigan, Mother demonstrated an affirmative choice to maintain an endangering environment.
The court noted that under Subsection (E), the relevant inquiry is whether the parent’s conduct—including acts, omissions, or failures to act—directly results in the child’s endangerment. Here, the Mother’s failure to abide by the safety plan and her decision to allow Father back into the home despite his history of violence were sufficient “acts” to support the finding. The court further emphasized that scienter is not required for a parent’s own acts to constitute endangerment; the mere exposure of the children to a recurring cycle of domestic violence and substance abuse satisfied the Department’s burden.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient to establish that Mother engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children. The court reasoned that Mother’s continued association with an abuser, in direct violation of Department directives and after being provided with alternative housing, constituted a pattern of endangerment that justified termination under Subsection (E).
Regarding the best-interest determination, the court held that the trial court reasonably formed a strong conviction that termination was appropriate. The court pointed to the ongoing domestic violence, the lack of parental accountability, and the parents’ failure to address substance abuse issues as factors that outweighed the parental bond. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.
Practical Application
This case provides a strategic roadmap for practitioners dealing with parents who are victims of domestic violence but refuse to separate from the aggressor. To defend against such a termination, counsel must ensure the client demonstrates “radical accountability” and strictly adheres to safety plans. For the moving party, this case highlights that the “rejection of resources” is a critical evidentiary category that can bridge the gap between a single incident of violence and a finding of a “course of conduct” under Subsection (E).
Checklists
Proving Endangerment via Domestic Violence
- Document all instances where the parent was offered shelter or relocation services and refused.
- Obtain police call-out logs during the pendency of the suit to show recurring instability.
- Highlight any “minimization” of violence in the parent’s testimony or therapy notes to show lack of accountability.
- Contrast the parent’s stated intent to stay away from the abuser with unannounced visit reports or social media evidence showing continued contact.
Defending the “Stay-At-Home” Parent
- Establish if the “rejection of resources” was based on legitimate fears or lack of actual capacity (e.g., no transportation to the shelter).
- Detail any efforts the parent made to comply with the service plan other than the separation from the abuser.
- Focus on the Holley factors regarding the child’s desires and the emotional bond, seeking to decouple the “conduct” from the “best interest” finding.
Citation
In the Interest of K.A.E.E. and K.M.-A.E., Children, No. 10-25-00365-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~68307321-b117-4417-bfab-f1e583227b9b~~
Share this content: