Third Court of Appeals Affirms Termination Based on Endangerment and Best Interest Findings

C. R. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-25-00750-CV, March 27, 2026.

On appeal from 155th District Court of Fayette County, Texas

Synopsis

The Third Court of Appeals affirmed a bench-trial termination order, concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and a best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). The court also upheld findings that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts and that appointing the Department as permanent managing conservator was in the children’s best interest.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination appeal, its lessons translate directly to high-conflict SAPCRs and custody modifications in divorce cases where substance use, mental-health instability, flight risk, and unsafe conduct drive conservatorship and possession outcomes. The opinion is a reminder that (1) a single, high-risk episode (here, a high-speed flight from law enforcement with children in the car) can anchor “endangerment” narratives, (2) out-of-state moves during pending proceedings can shift practical burdens regarding services and proof of stability/sobriety, and (3) hostile communications that destabilize placements and children can support restrictions on contact and factor into best-interest and conservatorship determinations even where a parent remains bonded and expresses concern for the children.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Mother was stopped at 1:06 a.m. in Fayette County while parked at a closed business with blankets covering the car windows. Dispatch advised the deputy that Mother had two outstanding felony warrants—one in Texas for assault family violence and one in New Mexico for custodial interference. When questioned, Mother fled, initiating a pursuit on State Highway 71 exceeding 100 mph (reaching over 111 mph), at night, on rural roadways where animals/livestock could be present. After initially appearing to stop and “give up,” she drove off again until spike strips deflated two tires and she finally stopped.

Officers discovered three children in the car (ages nine, six, and three). The Department investigator learned the children had been living out of the vehicle during a week-long “road trip,” eating in the car (including using an electric mini-grill), sleeping in the car, and showering at gas stations. Two of the children appeared dirty and had a foul odor; the youngest lacked shoes and socks. Mother was jailed and charged with evading arrest with a motor vehicle and child endangerment.

The Department created a reunification plan requiring, among other things, parenting education, drug testing, a psychological evaluation, counseling, and proof of lifestyle changes. Mother completed a parenting class while incarcerated and lived briefly in a Texas transitional living facility, but then moved to New Mexico. The Department advised it could not directly fund or contract for out-of-state services and that Mother would need to obtain and pay for services and drug testing herself; Mother did not provide drug-test results. A psychological evaluation identified mental-health and substance-related concerns (including bipolar disorder and cannabis use disorder) and noted problematic behavior patterns (including hostility and scapegoating). The children were eventually placed with Mother’s cousin in Kentucky, where they were reported to be thriving and stable. Visitation was later suspended at CASA’s request based on concerns about Mother’s hostile/threatening communications with the placement and observed behavioral declines in the children after virtual visits.

At the September 2025 bench trial, the Department and CASA sought termination and continuation of the Kentucky placement. The Department emphasized Mother’s unresolved sobriety and mental-health concerns, her hostile communications (including the placement’s need to involve law enforcement in Kentucky), and the lack of demonstrated lifestyle change. The Department acknowledged the parent-child bond and that Mother sought updates on the children, but maintained the children’s current stability and safety needs supported termination and Department PMC.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering conditions) and § 161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangering conduct).
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported findings that the Department made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported appointing the Department as the children’s permanent managing conservator.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar termination framework:

• Statutory grounds + best interest required: Termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of at least one predicate ground under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and that termination is in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
• Endangerment standards:
• § 161.001(b)(1)(D) focuses on the child’s environment/conditions of living that endanger physical or emotional well-being.
• § 161.001(b)(1)(E) focuses on the parent’s conduct (a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct) that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Best interest: The analysis is guided by the Holley factors and related best-interest jurisprudence (recognizing that not every factor must be proved and evidence may overlap with endangerment).
• Appellate review: Legal and factual sufficiency are measured against the clear-and-convincing burden, with appropriate deference to the factfinder in resolving credibility conflicts and weighing evidence.
• Reunification efforts / conservatorship: The court reviewed whether evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the Department made reasonable efforts and that Department PMC served the children’s best interest under the Family Code’s conservatorship framework.

Application

The Third Court of Appeals treated the evidence as a cumulative endangerment record rather than a narrow, one-incident case. The high-speed pursuit—at night, on rural highways, at extreme speeds, with three young children in the vehicle—was central. That episode supplied powerful proof of exposure to danger and Mother’s willingness to prioritize flight over safety, supporting an endangerment-by-conduct narrative and reinforcing the proposition that a child’s emotional and physical well-being can be endangered without an actual injury occurring.

The court also considered the broader context that made the episode more than an isolated lapse: Mother’s outstanding felony warrants (including custodial interference tied to a prior CPS matter), unstable living circumstances while traveling with the children (sleeping in the car, limited hygiene, inadequate clothing), and unresolved issues flagged by the psychological evaluation (mental-health diagnoses and behavioral concerns such as hostility/scapegoating). The Department’s inability to confirm sobriety—because Mother relocated out of Texas, did not provide drug-test results, and the Department could not directly furnish out-of-state services—was treated as a practical and evidentiary gap that the factfinder could weigh against Mother when assessing ongoing risk and “lifestyle change.”

On best interest, the appellate court credited stability evidence: the children’s improved functioning in the Kentucky placement, school progress, the placement’s long-term commitment, and testimony that the children wanted to remain there and were thriving. The court also considered the deterioration in the children’s behavior after virtual visits and the placement’s need to involve law enforcement due to Mother’s communications—facts that supported concerns about emotional endangerment and the feasibility of safe, constructive co-parenting/contact going forward.

Regarding reunification efforts, the court accepted that the Department provided a plan, communicated expectations, and offered available services; that Mother completed some components (parenting class; psychological evaluation) did not negate the trial court’s finding that additional components (sobriety proof, counseling/mental-health treatment, demonstrated stability) remained unaddressed. The court was unpersuaded that Mother’s move out of state converted the Department’s reasonable-efforts obligation into an obligation to procure and fund services across state lines, especially where the Department advised Mother of how to proceed and what documentation was needed.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). In substance, the record supported findings that Mother’s environment and decisions exposed the children to unacceptable risk—most starkly by the high-speed evasion with the children in the car—and that her conduct reflected an endangering course of behavior when viewed alongside instability, unresolved warrants, and related circumstances.

The court further held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient that termination was in the children’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). The trial court could reasonably prioritize the children’s need for safety, stability, and emotional security in a successful placement over Mother’s asserted bond and intermittent compliance, particularly given the unresolved sobriety/mental-health concerns and conflict escalating around contact and placement.

Finally, the court held the evidence was sufficient to support findings that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts and that appointing the Department as permanent managing conservator served the children’s best interest. The record reflected a service plan, attempted engagement, and a stable permanency trajectory for the children, while Mother’s relocation and non-production of requested sobriety documentation left key safety questions unanswered.

Practical Application

• Endangerment can be proven through “risk exposure,” not just outcomes. In custody and modification litigation, practitioners should develop the record around dangerous decision-making (e.g., high-risk driving, fleeing law enforcement, unsafe travel/living arrangements) and tie it to predictable harm—not merely the absence of physical injury.
• Course-of-conduct narratives matter. Even where a dramatic incident exists, courts often affirm when the incident is contextualized with instability, criminal justice entanglement, untreated mental-health/substance issues, and patterns of hostile or impulsive conduct. Build (or attack) the “course of conduct” frame early.
• Out-of-state moves can become an evidentiary trap. If your client relocates during a CPS/SAPCR case, treat service access, proof of completion, and documentation as a first-order litigation issue. Don’t assume “I did it elsewhere” will carry the day without admissible records and credible corroboration.
• Hostile communications can drive best-interest and possession outcomes. The placement’s need to involve law enforcement and CASA’s testimony that the children dysregulated after contact are facts that translate well into restricted access, supervised visitation, or no-contact orders in non-termination contexts.
• Stability evidence wins bench trials. The court credited testimony that the children were thriving, wanted to stay, and had a committed long-term placement. In private cases, the same themes appear as school attendance, therapy progress, routines, and caregiver credibility.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record (D) and (E)

• Obtain law-enforcement reports, dash-cam/body-cam, CAD logs, warrant confirmations, and charging instruments.
• Elicit testimony on risk mechanics: speed, time of night, road conditions, traffic, animals/livestock, and likelihood of loss of control.
• Document children’s condition at removal: hygiene, clothing, fatigue, injuries, hunger, medical needs, and developmental concerns.
• Tie facts to a course of conduct: prior CPS history, custodial interference, repeated instability, pattern of impulsive decisions.
• Prepare experts/records on mental-health and substance-use concerns and how they relate to parenting capacity and child safety.

Proving (or Defeating) Best Interest Under Holley

• Stabilize the “child-now” picture: school records, attendance, grades, IEPs, counseling notes (as admissible), placement photos/routines, and caregiver testimony.
• Develop “before vs. after” comparisons: behaviors after visits, sleep disruption, aggression/anxiety, regression, and therapist/CASA observations.
• Address the parent-child bond candidly: acknowledge it, then explain why safety/stability outweigh it (or, for the parent, show protective insight and change).
• Present a concrete permanency plan: long-term placement commitment, home study status, support network, and financial/medical arrangements.
• For the defending parent: present a realistic, documented plan for housing, employment, childcare, and treatment continuity.

Reunification Services and Out-of-State Compliance

• If the parent relocates, immediately secure:
• Provider names, addresses, and releases for records.
• Payment proof and attendance/completion certificates.
• Drug-test results from reputable labs with chain-of-custody documentation.
• Create a “services spreadsheet” for trial: requirement, referral date, provider, dates attended, completion status, and exhibit numbers.
• Confirm whether the agency can contract out of state; if not, build the record on what instructions were given to the parent and what alternatives existed.
• For parents: avoid “verbal compliance”—produce admissible records and live testimony when possible.

Managing Communications to Avoid Visitation and Placement Fallout

• Use written boundaries: one communication channel, no direct contact with placements if prohibited, and no threats or harassment.
• Preserve evidence of appropriate communications (tone, frequency, content) to rebut claims of hostility.
• If representing the placement/other party, memorialize problematic contacts and link them to child impact (behavioral changes, disruptions, safety concerns).
• Seek protective orders or tailored injunctions early when communications become destabilizing.

Citation

C. R. F. v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services, No. 03-25-00750-CV (Tex. App.—Austin (3d Dist.) Mar. 27, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~ade3cf5d-9812-4b79-8c9a-44f422f11038~~