Section 161.001 Continuing-Danger Findings | In re J.B. and B.B. (2026)

In the Interest of J.B. and B.B., Children, 11-26-00093-CV, September 24, 2026.

On appeal from 326th District Court, Taylor County, Texas

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that clear and convincing evidence supported findings that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the children to their mother, but a continuing danger in the home prevented reunification. The evidence was also legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding and the resulting termination order.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its evidentiary lessons extend directly to contested conservatorship, possession, and divorce litigation involving substance abuse, family violence, unsafe housing, or a request for restricted access. The opinion illustrates how courts evaluate a parent’s recent claims of improvement against a longer history of relapse, incomplete treatment, positive drug testing, instability, and resistance to intervention.

For custody practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of proving both sides of the reunification equation: what services and alternatives were actually offered, and why the risk remained despite those efforts. In divorce cases, the same evidence may support temporary orders, supervised possession, geographic or conduct restrictions, exclusive use of a residence, or limitations under Chapter 153 of the Texas Family Code. The decision does not change Texas property-division law, but evidence concerning housing, employment, treatment expenses, criminal exposure, and financial instability may overlap with property, support, and temporary-relief disputes.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department received reports that the mother and presumed father had endangered and neglectfully supervised J.B. and B.B. The reported concerns included illegal drug use, unsanitary living conditions, failure to ensure that B.B. received prescribed ADHD medication, and an allegation that B.B. had been sexually assaulted. The mother allegedly used heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine in the children’s presence, and both children later tested positive for controlled substances.

Department investigators initially had difficulty locating the mother and children. When an investigator found them living with a friend, the mother declined to provide the address because the friend did not want CPS inside the residence. School personnel, friends, and relatives expressed concern that the mother was using heroin and was not being candid about the family’s location or circumstances. The mother ultimately admitted methamphetamine and marihuana use.

The Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship in June 2024. Its removal-avoidance and reunification efforts included attempting a parental child-safety placement, searching for appropriate relatives and friends, discussing placement alternatives with the mother, implementing a court-ordered service plan, making service referrals, requesting drug testing, arranging visitation, and providing transportation assistance.

Drug testing showed continuing substance-abuse concerns. In June 2024, the mother’s hair-follicle test was positive for amphetamines, cocaine, methamphetamine, marihuana, heroin, codeine, and hydrocodone. At approximately the same time, B.B. tested positive for amphetamine, cocaine metabolite, and methamphetamine, while J.B. tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. The mother had additional positive tests in October 2024, August 2025, and November 2025.

The mother completed some services, including a substance-abuse assessment and a 90-day rehabilitation program. Her progress, however, was followed by relapse and additional treatment episodes. She admitted in June 2025 that she was injecting methamphetamine intravenously. She returned to rehabilitation but left without completing the program. She also left another treatment facility after concluding that she no longer needed continued inpatient treatment. Shortly before the final hearing began, she reportedly relapsed and overdosed on fentanyl.

At trial, the mother disputed the adequacy of the Department’s efforts. She asserted that referrals had not been made, that caseworkers failed to arrange a psychological evaluation, and that she did not receive the services necessary to complete her plan. She also presented evidence of more recent progress: she was staying at the Noah Project, driving for Lyft and Uber, attending weekly visits, participating in meetings and group therapy through a methadone clinic, and attempting to secure a three-bedroom residence.

The mother nevertheless acknowledged that she could not then provide the children with a safe and stable home. She also agreed that the children were happy in their foster placement. The trial court terminated her parental rights after finding predicate endangerment under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2), reasonable reunification efforts, and a continuing danger preventing the children’s return.

Issues Decided

The Eleventh Court addressed two principal issues:

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

2. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(f)–(g) that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the children to the mother, but a continuing danger in the home prevented their return.

The mother did not challenge the predicate endangerment findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. “Clear and convincing evidence” is the degree of proof that produces in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the allegations. Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007.

The court also applied Section 161.001(f)–(g), under which the pertinent findings concerning reasonable efforts and continuing danger must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The question was not whether the Department achieved reunification, but whether its efforts were reasonable under the circumstances and whether danger continued to prevent a safe return.

For legal sufficiency, the appellate court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the challenged finding was true. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, credits reasonable resolutions of disputed facts in favor of the finding, and disregards evidence the factfinder reasonably could have disbelieved. It may not, however, disregard undisputed evidence contrary to the finding. In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002).

For factual sufficiency, the court considers the entire record, including disputed evidence contrary to the finding, and determines whether the factfinder reasonably could have formed a firm belief or conviction. The reviewing court must defer to the factfinder’s credibility determinations unless the contrary evidence is so significant that the finding could not reasonably stand. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25–26 (Tex. 2002).

The court emphasized that termination requires the Department to clear a high evidentiary bar. See In re K.N., No. 24-0881, 2026 WL 1614378, at 6 (Tex. June 5, 2026); In re H.S., No. 24-0307, 2026 WL 1614496, at 8–9 (Tex. June 5, 2026).

Application

The court evaluated the Department’s efforts in the context of the entire case rather than focusing on a single referral, service, or caseworker interaction. Investigators attempted to locate the mother and children, sought a parental child-safety placement, investigated relatives and friends as possible placements, discussed alternatives with the mother, and later provided a service plan, testing, visitation, referrals, and transportation assistance. The Department also had to work around periods when the mother did not maintain communication or disclose where she and the children were living.

The mother offered a competing account. She maintained that the Department failed to make necessary referrals and that caseworker omissions interfered with her ability to complete services. She also pointed to employment, visitation, treatment participation, shelter at the Noah Project, and her efforts to obtain suitable housing. Those facts were relevant, but they did not require the trial court to accept her explanation of the case or conclude that the Department’s efforts were unreasonable.

The continuing-danger finding rested on more than historical drug use. The record reflected repeated positive tests during the case, intravenous methamphetamine use, incomplete treatment, relapse, a fentanyl overdose shortly before trial, and controlled-substance exposure affecting the children themselves. The mother’s acknowledgment that she could not yet provide a safe and stable home further supported the conclusion that the barrier to return remained present when the case was tried.

The trial court, as factfinder, was entitled to assess the mother’s credibility and weigh her recent progress against her longer pattern of relapse and instability. Under the heightened legal- and factual-sufficiency standards, the appellate court deferred to those reasonable credibility determinations.

The same evidentiary record supported the best-interest finding. The children needed safety and permanence, were doing well in their foster placement, and could not safely be returned to the mother at the time of trial. The mother’s recent efforts did not eliminate the evidence of persistent substance abuse, unstable housing, incomplete treatment, and inability to provide a safe environment.

Holding

The Eleventh Court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(f)–(g). A reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the children and that a continuing danger in the home nevertheless prevented reunification.

The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. Because the mother did not challenge the predicate endangerment findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and the challenged findings survived appellate review, the court affirmed the termination order.

Practical Application

For Department and ad litem counsel, In re J.B. and B.B. demonstrates that “reasonable efforts” should be proved through a concrete chronology. Identify who attempted contact, what placement alternatives were investigated, when each referral was made, what transportation or visitation assistance was offered, how the parent responded, and why reunification remained unsafe. A generic statement that services were offered is materially weaker than contemporaneous records and witness testimony describing each effort.

For parent’s counsel, complaints about missing referrals or caseworker inaction should be raised while the case remains pending—not for the first time at final trial. Seek written clarification of the service plan, request status hearings when referrals stall, document unsuccessful efforts to contact the caseworker, and move for appropriate relief. If return is arguably safe, consider whether the record supports requesting a monitored return rather than relying solely on an objection to termination.

Substance-abuse cases require proof extending beyond program attendance. Completion certificates are helpful, but courts will examine whether the parent maintained sobriety, submitted to testing, completed recommended aftercare, avoided relapse, secured stable housing, and developed a workable safety plan. Counsel should distinguish lawful, medically supervised treatment—such as prescribed methadone—from illicit use, while presenting qualified evidence explaining the treatment protocol and its safety implications.

In private custody litigation, the decision supports building a similar evidentiary chain when seeking supervised possession or other protective restrictions. Drug-test results, treatment records, criminal records, family-violence findings, school information, housing evidence, and admissions concerning present parenting capacity may collectively establish an ongoing risk even when the parent shows recent improvement.

Finally, appellate preservation matters. The mother did not challenge the predicate findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Termination counsel should separately evaluate and brief every finding necessary to the judgment, including predicate grounds, best interest, and any applicable findings concerning reunification efforts and continuing danger.

Checklists

Proving Reasonable Reunification Efforts

• Create a dated chronology of every attempted contact with the parent.
• Identify each service referral, the referral date, and the provider.
• Introduce the court-ordered service plan and any amendments.
• Document transportation, visitation, and scheduling assistance.
• Identify relatives, friends, and other placements investigated.
• Explain why proposed placements were approved or rejected.
• Preserve communications showing the parent’s response to offered services.
• Address any lapse, delay, or error by the Department directly rather than leaving it unexplained.
• Connect each offered service to the danger that caused removal.
• Explain why less restrictive alternatives did not permit a safe return.

Proving or Contesting Continuing Danger

• Obtain all urinalysis, hair-follicle, nail-bed, and other testing records.
• Establish the timing of positive tests in relation to removal, treatment, visitation, and trial.
• Distinguish prescribed medications from illicit or nonprescribed substances.
• Obtain qualified testimony concerning treatment compliance and prognosis.
• Document relapses, overdoses, missed tests, and incomplete treatment.
• Investigate whether the children were exposed to or tested positive for controlled substances.
• Present current evidence concerning housing, household members, and home conditions.
• Address family violence, criminal charges, and unsafe associates.
• Develop a written relapse-prevention and child-safety plan.
• Prove whether the parent can presently provide a safe and stable home—not merely whether the parent hopes to do so later.

Representing a Parent During the Service-Plan Period

• Review every service-plan requirement with the client in writing.
• Confirm each referral and appointment with the caseworker and provider.
• Document missing referrals, waitlists, transportation problems, and scheduling conflicts.
• Promptly seek court intervention when the Department fails to facilitate ordered services.
• Advise the client not to miss or refuse drug tests.
• Obtain independent testing when appropriate and admissible.
• Ensure that treatment is completed, including recommended aftercare.
• Gather employment, housing, counseling, and visitation records as the case progresses.
• Identify safe relatives or other placement options early.
• Evaluate whether to request a monitored return under the applicable statutory procedure.
• Prepare the client to explain relapses candidly and with corroborated evidence of corrective action.

Preparing the Termination Appeal

• Identify every finding necessary to support the judgment.
• Challenge each viable predicate ground separately.
• Brief best interest independently from the predicate grounds.
• Address Section 161.001(f)–(g) findings when applicable.
• Separate legal-sufficiency arguments from factual-sufficiency arguments.
• Identify undisputed evidence contrary to the challenged finding.
• Explain why disputed contrary evidence is significant under the clear-and-convincing standard.
• Include record citations for every material factual assertion.
• Account for the factfinder’s authority over credibility and demeanor.
• Do not frame a request for appellate reweighing as a sufficiency challenge.

Applying the Decision in Private Custody Litigation

• Plead the statutory basis for any requested possession restriction.
• Obtain certified copies of relevant criminal and family-violence records.
• Secure admissible drug-testing and treatment evidence.
• Connect historical conduct to a present or continuing risk.
• Develop evidence concerning the child’s current placement and functioning.
• Propose specific protective measures rather than an undefined restriction.
• Consider supervised possession, neutral exchanges, testing conditions, or treatment requirements.
• Address temporary housing and household members.
• Preserve rulings and offers of proof for appeal.
• Avoid relying exclusively on generalized allegations of substance abuse or instability.

Citation

In re J.B. & B.B., No. 11-26-00093-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland Sept. 24, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~060a461a-7df9-4084-b794-7a99ba959e53~~