Endangerment Evidence Supports Termination | In re C.J.C. (2026)

In the Interest of C.J.C., O.C.C. and V.A.R.C., Children, 08-26-00083-CV, July 10, 2026.

On appeal from 143rd District Court, Ward County, Texas

Synopsis

The El Paso Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) where the record showed domestic violence, inconsistent explanations for a child’s facial injuries, and inadequate response to an infant’s serious medical condition. That same evidence also supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2), so the termination order was affirmed.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family lawyers handling SAPCRs, divorces involving children, modification suits, protective-order matters, and conservatorship disputes, In re C.J.C. reinforces that courts treat domestic violence, untreated medical concerns, unsafe living conditions, and implausible or shifting explanations for child injuries as powerful endangerment evidence. In private custody litigation, the same categories of proof can drive restrictions on possession, supervised access, geographic limitations, sole managing conservatorship arguments, and emergency relief under a best-interest framework even when termination is not at issue.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved in fall 2024 after allegations of medical neglect and physical abuse. One report concerned infant V.A.R.C., who had been discharged from the NICU but allegedly had not received appropriate pediatric follow-up. Another concerned visible bruising to O.C.C.’s nose and eye area. The Department also investigated a domestic-violence incident in which police were called to the home, with allegations that Father struck Mother while she was holding the infant.

The evidence showed repeated instability and noncooperation. When the investigator asked about O.C.C.’s injuries, Mother gave inconsistent explanations. At one point she said he “face-planted” on tile; elsewhere she said he fell while pushing a stroller outside; at trial she described a different indoor trip-and-fall scenario. Father also gave a separate version. The Department treated those shifting accounts as significant because the injuries involved bruising across the child’s face and eye sockets.

The Department’s investigator also testified that Father became verbally aggressive during the investigation, stating, “If you think I can become violent, I will show you how violent I can be,” while the children were present in the home. Mother nevertheless denied domestic violence. The Department attempted to implement a safety plan or safety placement, but the parents were not cooperative.

At removal, the Department observed conditions suggesting acute neglect. The infant was heavily soiled, with urine and feces overflowing from the diaper, and had a red mark across her body. O.C.C. was also in an overly soiled diaper. The Department caseworker later testified that V.A.R.C. had failure to thrive, was underweight, and lacked normal mobility when she came into care. Mother’s explanation was essentially that the baby had been premature and had been in the hospital, and she did not understand the seriousness because she thought the hospital would have addressed it.

Housing stability also deteriorated after removal. The family’s original HUD residence was described as appropriate, but the parents then moved to a residence with Father’s relatives that the caseworker described as unsafe and unfit for children, with alcohol, cigarettes, holes in walls and floors, exposed wires, stray animals, little food, and no running water. Mother later lived in an RV. The caseworker testified that Mother struggled throughout the case to maintain a safe, stable, and functional home and did not meaningfully acknowledge the safety problems until late in the proceedings.

Mother completed some services, including parenting classes, a psychological evaluation, domestic-violence victim services classes, and negative drug testing. But she did not complete individual counseling before trial, struggled with visitation and housing stability, and the Department asked her to repeat certain services because of persistent concerns. The district court, after a de novo hearing that included the record from the associate judge’s bench trial plus additional testimony, terminated Mother’s parental rights under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and found termination to be in the children’s best interest.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) for knowingly placing or allowing the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D).
• Whether legally sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) for engaging in endangering conduct or knowingly placing the children with a person who engaged in such conduct.
• Whether factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E).
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of both a 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). In reviewing legal sufficiency, the appellate court 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. In reviewing factual sufficiency, the court considers the entire record to determine whether disputed evidence is such that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed that firm belief or conviction.

Under subsection (D), the focus is on the child’s environment—conditions or surroundings that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being. Under subsection (E), the focus is on parental conduct, including a course of conduct that exposes the child to loss or injury or jeopardizes the child’s well-being. Domestic violence in the home, even if directed at another adult, can constitute endangerment because it creates an inherently dangerous environment for children. Evidence of neglect of medical needs, failure to protect, and unexplained or suspicious injuries may also support both subsections.

The best-interest inquiry under § 161.001(b)(2) remains child-centered and may rely on the same evidence supporting predicate endangerment grounds. In practice, courts commonly evaluate best interest through the familiar Holley considerations and the statutory factors in Family Code § 263.307, including the child’s vulnerability, the magnitude and frequency of harm, the parent’s willingness and ability to seek out and complete services, and the parent’s capacity to provide a safe physical home.

Application

The court treated the record as showing more than an isolated lapse. It saw a pattern of endangerment grounded in three connected themes: violence, injury, and neglect. First, the domestic-violence evidence was not merely background noise. The police-call incident, Mother’s initial implication that Father struck her while she held the infant, Father’s aggressive statement to the investigator in the children’s presence, and Mother’s continuing denial of violence all allowed the factfinder to infer that the children were being raised in an environment marked by volatility and danger. That supported both subsection (D), because the home surroundings were endangering, and subsection (E), because allowing children to remain exposed to that conduct is itself endangering behavior.

Second, the court placed significant weight on the multiple and inconsistent explanations for O.C.C.’s facial bruising. In child-protection litigation, inconsistency is often as probative as the injury itself. Here, the competing explanations—falling on tile, falling outside while pushing a stroller, tripping over a couch, and Father’s separate account—permitted the trial court to discount the parents’ credibility and infer that the injury had not been truthfully explained. The opinion indicates that the Department’s concern was not simply that O.C.C. was injured, but that the adults responsible for him could not or would not provide a consistent and credible account.

Third, the infant’s medical condition and state at removal supplied concrete evidence of neglect. V.A.R.C.’s prior NICU stay, the allegation that there had been inadequate pediatric follow-up, her failure-to-thrive diagnosis, underweight status, and lack of normal mobility all supported an inference that Mother had failed to adequately address serious medical needs. The soiled diapers and testimony that the children had not been tended to in some time reinforced that concern. The appellate court appears to have viewed Mother’s explanations—that the child had been premature and she assumed the hospital had addressed the issue—not as exculpatory, but as evidence of inadequate parental attention to an obviously vulnerable infant.

The court also considered Mother’s partial compliance with services, but it did not find that evidence dispositive. Completion of some services did not negate the trial court’s ability to credit the continuing evidence of instability, poor housing conditions, incomplete counseling, persistent safety concerns, and lack of meaningful acknowledgment of the underlying risks. For appellate purposes, the existence of some favorable evidence did not so overwhelm the Department’s proof as to preclude a firm belief or conviction in support of the judgment.

Holding

The court held that clear and convincing evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D). The evidence allowed the trial court to find that Mother knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering surroundings, particularly in light of the domestic violence, the unsafe and unstable housing conditions that followed, the condition of the children at removal, and the inadequate response to the infant’s medical needs.

The court also held that clear and convincing evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The record supported a finding that Mother engaged in endangering conduct, or knowingly placed the children with a person who did, by exposing them to domestic violence, failing to provide a credible explanation for O.C.C.’s injuries, and failing to adequately address V.A.R.C.’s condition.

Finally, the court held that the same evidence supporting subsections (D) and (E) also supported the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Viewed under the governing sufficiency standards, the evidence of violence, instability, neglect, injury, and failure to protect was enough for the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, In re C.J.C. is a useful reminder that endangerment cases are won and lost on theme development, not simply on whether a single event can be explained away. If you represent the petitioner, this opinion supports framing domestic violence, suspicious injuries, and medical neglect as a unified course of conduct showing impaired parental judgment and unsafe decision-making. Do not silo the evidence. The stronger argument is cumulative: the violence explains the instability, the instability explains the unsafe home conditions, and the adults’ inconsistent stories explain why the court should distrust their minimization of the child’s injuries and medical needs.

If you represent a parent, the case underscores the danger of partial compliance defenses. Trial courts will not necessarily be persuaded by completed classes and negative drug tests if the core safety concerns remain unaddressed. In practical terms, the defensive strategy must focus on credibility repair, corroborated medical follow-up, demonstrated separation from violent actors if applicable, and documented housing remediation. Inconsistencies about how a child was injured are especially damaging; if there is a benign explanation, counsel must lock it down early and support it with records, photos, timing evidence, or third-party testimony.

The opinion also has relevance in private conservatorship disputes. While the evidentiary burden is lower outside termination, the same proof points can carry substantial weight in temporary-orders hearings and final custody trials:

• family violence or coercive control in the child’s environment;
• failure to secure appropriate medical care;
• recurring unsafe home conditions;
• implausible or changing explanations for injuries; and
• failure to acknowledge risk or accept responsibility.

In that setting, In re C.J.C. is less about termination doctrine in isolation and more about how appellate courts view patterns of parental minimization. That is often the decisive factor in conservatorship litigation.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record

• Obtain police reports, 911 records, body-cam footage, and protective-order records relating to domestic violence.
• Tie violent incidents to the children’s presence, exposure, or resulting instability in the home.
• Document each version of any explanation given for a child’s injury.
• Compare statements made to investigators, medical providers, law enforcement, and trial testimony.
• Gather pediatric, hospital, NICU, and follow-up records to show whether recommended care occurred.
• Use photographs, removal records, and witness testimony to establish the children’s physical condition at removal.
• Develop evidence showing whether the parent acknowledged the problem or continued to deny it.

Proving Unsafe Conditions or Surroundings Under § 161.001(b)(1)(D)

• Establish the physical condition of the residence with photographs, inspection notes, and caseworker testimony.
• Identify hazards specifically affecting children: exposed wiring, structural damage, lack of water, inadequate food, smoke exposure, or dangerous occupants.
• Show duration, not just existence, of the unsafe conditions.
• Demonstrate the parent knew about the conditions and nevertheless kept the children there.
• Connect the unsafe surroundings to the children’s age and vulnerability, especially for infants or medically fragile children.

Proving Endangering Conduct Under § 161.001(b)(1)(E)

• Frame the parent’s conduct as a course of conduct, not a single bad event.
• Show the parent either engaged in dangerous conduct directly or knowingly exposed the children to another dangerous adult.
• Highlight denial, minimization, and refusal to cooperate as evidence bearing on future risk.
• Use inconsistent injury explanations to attack credibility and support an inference of danger.
• Connect medical neglect evidence to parental decision-making, not merely to the child’s diagnosis.

Defending the Parent When Injury or Neglect Allegations Exist

• Secure all medical records immediately and reconstruct the treatment timeline.
• Determine whether discharge instructions, referrals, and follow-up appointments can be objectively proven.
• Identify neutral witnesses who observed the injury event or the child’s condition.
• Eliminate conflicting narratives by preparing a consistent, record-supported explanation early.
• If domestic violence is present, advise immediate safety steps and document them.
• Show completed counseling and behavior change, not merely enrollment or partial attendance.
• Present current housing evidence with photographs, lease documents, utility records, and testimony from a credible third party.

Using Partial Service Compliance Effectively

• Do not rely on certificates alone; connect each completed service to reduced future risk.
• Offer testimony from providers about insight gained, accountability accepted, and behavioral change.
• Explain any incomplete services with specificity and corroboration.
• Show stable employment, stable housing, and consistent visitation as part of a broader rehabilitation narrative.
• Address the original safety concerns directly rather than arguing only that the client checked procedural boxes.

Best-Interest Presentation After Predicate Grounds Are Shown

• Tie endangerment evidence to future safety concerns and the child’s need for permanence.
• Compare the parent’s current stability with the child’s present placement and progress.
• Address the child’s medical, developmental, and emotional needs with precision.
• Show whether the parent has demonstrated protective capacity, not just affection.
• Anticipate the argument that the same evidence supports both predicate grounds and best interest.

Citation

In the Interest of C.J.C., O.C.C. and V.A.R.C., Children, No. 08-26-00083-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso July 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~9e3742cf-8b84-4d15-b3f2-fa32d0e5399c~~