Thirteenth Court Upholds Endangerment Findings Despite Father’s Challenge to Only Subsections (D) and (E)

In the Interest of K.L.G., K.L.G., K.A.R.G., and K.L.G., Children, 13-25-00643-CV, April 30, 2026.

On appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination and refused Father’s request to delete the trial court’s endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Even though Father did not challenge the independent subsection (N) predicate ground or best-interest finding, the court left the endangerment findings intact because the record contained evidence that Father knew of ongoing abuse and neglect and failed to protect the children.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this case matters well beyond termination appeals. Subsections (D) and (E) findings carry significant collateral consequences in later SAPCR, conservatorship, modification, supervised-access, and step-parent adoption litigation because endangerment findings can shape future parental-rights restrictions and may affect another child under § 161.001(b)(1)(M). The opinion is also a reminder that in custody and divorce litigation, documented knowledge of abuse without meaningful intervention can become the decisive fact pattern when the case later shifts from possessory disputes to endangerment-based restrictions or termination exposure.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department removed the children after a January 18, 2024 report that the youngest child, age two, had been taken to the hospital with indications of serious physical abuse. The record reflected multiple bruises to the child’s face, back, legs, and arms, along with head lice, an extremely soiled diaper, and other signs of neglect. Detective Jeremiah Cantu testified that the injuries appeared consistent with child abuse, that many bruises appeared older rather than freshly inflicted, and that the abuse appeared to have been hand-inflicted. Two photographs admitted into evidence depicted bruising on the child’s face and body.

The Department’s investigation also developed broader evidence of abuse and neglect affecting the sibling group. Detective Cantu testified that friends and family described the children as not being properly cared for and reported discipline crossing into abuse, including being struck with belts and on the face hard enough to leave bruises. He further testified that, after forensic interviews of the other children, he concluded there was probable cause to arrest Mother and her boyfriend, Orlando Licerio, for injury to a child with serious bodily injury, and his understanding was that both later pleaded guilty.

Father was not identified as the direct perpetrator of the January 2024 abuse. But his own statements became central. According to Detective Cantu, Father said Licerio had been abusing the children “for a long time” and that Mother had allowed it. Father reported that the older boys told him they were hit with belts, that one child had been burned with a cigarette, and that Mother and Licerio locked the children in a room for hours without food, water, or bathroom access. Father also said the abuse had been reported to him in 2023 and that all of the children “got hit,” including the youngest child. In short, the record supported an inference that Father knew of a pattern of abuse and neglect well before the removal.

The Department’s permanency specialist, Hailey Valenzuela, added evidence relevant to Father’s parental fitness and the children’s best interest. She testified that Father did not complete services, lacked stable housing, was homeless for a period, attended only one visit, and did not take advantage of transportation or phone-contact opportunities offered by the Department. She acknowledged Father had suffered serious injuries in a car accident and undergone multiple surgeries, including brain surgery, and that he was not living with Mother when the January 2024 incident occurred. Even so, the Department’s evidence framed the case not as direct infliction of abuse by Father, but as failure to protect despite asserted prior knowledge.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) that Father knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the subsection (D) finding.
• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) that Father engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the subsection (E) finding.
• Whether the court of appeals should modify the judgment to delete the subsection (D) and (E) findings even though Father did not challenge the separate subsection (N) predicate ground or the best-interest finding.

Rules Applied

Termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of at least one predicate ground under subsection (b)(1) and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest under subsection (b)(2).

The court’s discussion necessarily implicates the familiar rules governing subsections (D) and (E):

• Subsection (D) focuses on the child’s environment, including the suitability of the child’s living conditions and the parent’s awareness of the danger in those surroundings.
• Subsection (E) focuses on the parent’s conduct, including a course of conduct that jeopardizes the child’s physical or emotional well-being, as well as knowingly placing the child with an abusive or neglectful caregiver.
• Endangerment means exposure to loss or injury or jeopardizing a child’s emotional or physical health; it does not require proof that the conduct was directed at the child or that actual injury resulted.
• Because subsection (D) and (E) findings can have collateral consequences in future termination litigation, appellate courts generally address challenged findings under those subsections even when another unchallenged predicate ground independently supports termination.
• Legal-sufficiency review asks whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding.
• Factual-sufficiency review asks whether, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could still form a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the finding.

Although the opinion excerpt does not catalogue the court’s precedent by name, the analysis tracks the established Texas Supreme Court and intermediate-appellate framework governing review of termination findings under subsections (D) and (E), particularly the requirement that those findings receive appellate scrutiny because of their future statutory consequences.

Application

The court treated Father’s appeal as narrower than an ordinary termination challenge. He did not attack the subsection (N) finding or best-interest determination, so he was not seeking rendition of judgment in his favor. Instead, he sought a modified affirmance deleting only the endangerment findings. That posture mattered because the court’s task was not to decide whether termination as a whole could stand—it plainly could, given the unchallenged findings—but whether the record nonetheless supported retaining the subsection (D) and (E) determinations.

On that question, the court had ample record support. The evidence showed severe abuse to the youngest child and broader ongoing abuse and neglect within the household. More importantly for Father, the evidence indicated he knew this was happening before removal. Detective Cantu relayed Father’s own statements that Licerio had abused the children for a long time; that the older children reported being hit with belts and one being burned with a cigarette; that the children were deprived of food, water, and restroom access; and that all of the children, including the youngest, were being hit. Father even claimed he had been told this information in 2023.

That evidence allowed the trial court to infer both environmental endangerment and endangering conduct as to Father. Even if he was not the direct abuser and was not living with Mother when the triggering incident occurred, the factfinder could reasonably conclude that he knowingly allowed the children to remain in dangerous surroundings and knowingly left them with persons engaged in abusive conduct. The Department’s evidence thus did not depend on proving Father struck the children himself. It was enough that he knew of persistent abuse and neglect and failed to effectively protect them.

The opinion also reflects why mitigation evidence did not compel deletion of the findings. Father had serious physical and cognitive limitations after a motor-vehicle accident; he had unstable housing; and the Department witness acknowledged he was not present in the home during the January 2024 incident. But those facts did not negate the evidence that he had prior knowledge of the children’s mistreatment. In a clear-and-convincing review, the trial court remained free to credit the Department’s evidence and to view Father’s inaction as legally and factually sufficient proof of endangerment under both subsections.

Holding

The court held that the termination judgment would be affirmed in full, including the subsection (D) and (E) findings Father asked the court to delete. Because Father did not challenge the separate subsection (N) predicate ground or the best-interest finding, the judgment terminating his parental rights remained independently supportable.

The court further held that the record was sufficient to support the endangerment findings under subsections (D) and (E). The evidence that the children were exposed to severe abuse and neglect, coupled with evidence that Father knew of the abuse and neglect before removal yet failed to protect the children, justified leaving those findings in place rather than modifying the judgment.

Practical Application

This opinion is a useful appellate and trial-level reminder that subsection (D) and (E) findings are not throwaway findings once another predicate ground is secure. For appellate counsel, if the trial court made endangerment findings, those findings must be evaluated strategically even when an unchallenged predicate ground makes reversal of termination impossible. A parent may still pursue deletion of (D) and (E) findings to avoid future statutory consequences, but the appellate record must give the court a principled reason to do so.

For trial lawyers, the case underscores the importance of building or attacking the “knowledge plus inaction” narrative. In many family cases, the dispositive question is not who directly inflicted injury, but which parent knew the household was dangerous and nevertheless left the children there. That theme appears in termination cases, emergency temporary orders, motions to restrict access, and post-divorce modification proceedings. If your client is the protective parent, develop the timeline showing when the other parent learned of the abuse, what corroboration existed, and what concrete steps were or were not taken. If your client is the accused non-protective parent, the defense cannot stop at “I was not the abuser.” You need evidence of affirmative protective action: reports made, police contact, medical intervention, emergency filings, denied access, text messages demanding return of the children, and contemporaneous documentation showing the parent attempted to remove the children from danger.

The case also has practical significance in negotiated family litigation. Lawyers handling divorce or custody disputes involving paramours, step-figures, or third-party caregivers should assume that later endangerment litigation will focus heavily on what each parent knew about that third party’s conduct. A parent who minimizes a partner’s abuse during a custody fight may later face a record that supports supervised access, sole managing conservatorship for the other parent, or even termination claims involving another child. In other words, this is not just a termination opinion; it is a roadmap for how courts assess a parent’s failure to protect.

Checklists

Preserving an Appeal From Endangerment Findings

• Identify every predicate ground found by the trial court.
• Decide whether the appellate objective is reversal of termination, deletion of specific findings, or both.
• Specifically challenge subsection (D) and subsection (E) if those findings appear in the judgment.
• Brief both legal and factual sufficiency separately where appropriate.
• Address collateral consequences of (D) and (E) findings, including future § 161.001(b)(1)(M) implications.
• Do not assume that challenging only one predicate ground is enough when the client’s long-term objective is to avoid future endangerment consequences.

Proving Failure to Protect at Trial

• Develop a chronology showing when the parent first learned of abuse or neglect.
• Collect texts, emails, police reports, CPS reports, medical records, and witness statements reflecting prior knowledge.
• Elicit testimony tying the parent’s knowledge to specific acts or omissions.
• Show whether the parent left the children in the same environment after learning of the danger.
• Establish whether the parent sought protective orders, emergency relief, medical care, or law-enforcement intervention.
• Use sibling statements and third-party witness testimony to prove a pattern rather than an isolated episode.

Defending Against a Subsection (D) or (E) Finding

• Present documentary proof of every protective measure the parent took.
• Show prompt reporting to CPS, police, medical providers, or the court.
• Explain any delay in acting with corroborated evidence rather than general denials.
• Separate the parent temporally and physically from the abusive environment where possible.
• Rebut allegations of prior knowledge with dates, records, and witnesses.
• Avoid relying solely on “I was not the abuser,” which does not defeat a failure-to-protect theory.

Building the Record in Custody and Modification Cases

• Plead endangerment-based relief clearly when abuse by a third party is involved.
• Seek targeted findings on knowledge, exposure, and failure to protect.
• Tie the abuse evidence to conservatorship restrictions and possession terms.
• Request temporary orders that address unsafe paramours or household members directly.
• Preserve testimony about prior reports, prior injuries, and prior warnings.
• Consider how the record being made in a SAPCR may later be used in a termination case.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Parent’s Appellate Problem

• Do not wait until appeal to frame the case as one about collateral consequences of (D) and (E).
• Contest the Department’s proof of knowledge at trial, not merely the proof of direct abuse.
• Create an affirmative narrative of protective conduct with corroboration.
• Complete services and maintain consistent contact where the case plan requires it.
• Cure housing and visitation deficiencies early so the Department cannot use them to reinforce a broader endangerment narrative.
• If another predicate ground is unchallenged, understand that termination may still be affirmed even if the appeal targets only deletion of endangerment findings.

Citation

In the Interest of K.L.G., K.L.G., K.A.R.G., and K.L.G., Children, No. 13-25-00643-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~129bf2c3-ba47-49d5-ba29-559ea5545c37~~