Section 161.001 Endangerment Evidence Supports Termination | In re D.N. (2026)

In the Interest of D.N., D.N., D.N., D.N., D.N., and D.N., Children, 14-26-00343-CV, October 01, 2026.

On appeal from 313th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Evidence of physical abuse, domestic violence, drug use, inadequate food and housing, educational and medical neglect, abandonment, and inconsistent drug testing established both an endangering environment and an endangering course of conduct.

Relevance to Family Law

Although In re D.N. is a parental-termination case, its treatment of endangerment is directly relevant to contested conservatorship, possession, protective-order, and modification proceedings. Family-law litigators should evaluate endangerment cumulatively: domestic violence witnessed by children, failure to protect them from another parent, unstable housing, food insecurity, educational neglect, untreated medical conditions, drug use, and avoidance of testing may collectively support severe restrictions on conservatorship or possession even when no single fact would independently control the case.

The opinion also illustrates why a parent cannot rely solely on late compliance with services. In divorce and custody litigation, completion of counseling or parenting classes may have limited persuasive value if the parent has not remedied the underlying conditions, demonstrated sustained sobriety, secured stable housing, or protected the children from an abusive partner. Although the decision does not establish a property-division rule, financial and property evidence—such as hotel records, housing records, employment information, expenditures, and proof concerning the availability of food and medical care—may become important circumstantial evidence in custody and endangerment disputes.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department received a referral concerning physical abuse and neglectful supervision of six children. At the time of the referral, the three oldest children were staying with their father’s former wife, while the three youngest were staying with a paternal aunt. The children remained in those relative placements throughout the case, and both caregivers wanted to adopt the children in their respective homes.

The children’s adult half-siblings had taken them for Halloween but later could not locate Mother or Father. The parents had checked out of their hotel, would not disclose their location, and made no effort to retrieve the children. The children reported that their parents did not care for them properly, that Father physically abused Mother, and that both parents used drugs. Criminal warrants were ultimately issued for both parents on child-abandonment charges.

Interviews with the children disclosed extensive neglect. The older children had not attended school for several years. One child, who was thirteen by the time of trial, had not attended school since the third grade. The family moved between hotels and a vehicle, the children frequently lacked sufficient food, and they did not regularly bathe or have clean clothes. The children also reported that their parents sometimes left them alone in a hotel room for multiple days without food.

The evidence included serious allegations of physical abuse by Father. One child reported being punched in the stomach so forcefully that he had a seizure. He also described Father placing him in a chokehold, holding a gun to his head, and pulling the trigger when the gun was unloaded. Other children reported being pulled by their hair, slapped, and struck with objects. The children regularly witnessed physical and verbal violence between their parents and expressed fear of both of them.

The evidence also showed that Mother knew about Father’s violence but did not remove the children from the danger. A paternal aunt testified that she had personally observed Father abuse Mother and had urged Mother to leave him. The aunt and other relatives attempted to help, but Mother remained with Father. The aunt also knew of Father’s cocaine and pill use and testified that Mother had said the parents would leave and stop using drugs, but they did not do so.

Medical neglect formed another part of the Department’s case. The older children reported that illnesses could remain untreated for months. The younger children entered care with extensive dental problems, including numerous cavities and teeth requiring extraction. One child had been born in a hotel room and had no birth certificate. When the Department requested Mother’s assistance in obtaining one, she told the caseworker to “figure it out.”

Mother was largely unresponsive to the Department during the first six to ten months of the case. She eventually completed several services, including parenting classes, domestic-violence counseling, a psychological evaluation, and individual counseling. She did not, however, establish stable housing or employment.

Drug use remained an unresolved concern. The three oldest children reported seeing Mother use a white powder and pills. Mother acknowledged prior drug use but denied continued use. She did not submit to an initial drug screen, began testing only three months before trial, missed requested weekly tests, and refused court-directed hair-follicle testing. Although the tests she did take were negative, the trial court could consider the substantial gaps and her refusal to complete other requested testing.

Mother did not visit the children after removal, at least partly because the children did not want contact with her. Meanwhile, the relative caregivers enrolled the children in school or prekindergarten, obtained therapeutic services, addressed their educational and medical needs, and facilitated frequent contact among the siblings. The children improved in those placements, and the five children old enough to express a preference wanted to remain with their caregivers rather than return to their parents.

Issues Decided

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered whether:

1. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D).

2. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Mother engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangered their physical or emotional well-being under § 161.001(b)(1)(E).

3. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

Because the court upheld the endangerment findings, it did not need to rely on the separate predicate finding concerning failure to enroll the children in school under § 161.001(b)(1)(J) to affirm termination.

Rules Applied

Under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b), termination requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) focuses on the child’s conditions or surroundings. The relevant inquiry is whether the parent knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in an environment that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. A parent’s continued exposure of children to violence, inadequate shelter, insufficient food, unsafe caregivers, or other dangerous living conditions may support a subsection (D) finding.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) focuses on parental conduct. It requires proof of a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child, or proof that the parent knowingly placed the child with a person who engaged in endangering conduct. Endangerment does not require proof that the parent intended to injure the child or that the child suffered a specific injury. Domestic violence, drug use, neglect, instability, and a parent’s failure to protect a child from another person’s abuse may be considered as part of the entire course of conduct.

The appellate court reviewed legal sufficiency by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and determining whether a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. In reviewing factual sufficiency, the court considered the entire record, including disputed evidence, to determine whether contrary evidence was so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction.

A termination judgment also requires clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children’s best interest. The trial court may consider the children’s desires, their present and future emotional and physical needs, existing and future danger, the parenting abilities of the persons seeking custody, available programs, placement plans, the stability of the proposed homes, the parent’s acts or omissions, and any explanations for those acts or omissions. Evidence supporting a predicate ground may also bear on best interest.

Application

The court treated the evidence as a cumulative account of the environment in which Mother allowed the children to live. The children moved among hotels and a vehicle, lacked sufficient food, went without proper hygiene, remained out of school for years, and did not receive appropriate medical and dental care. The parents then disappeared without making arrangements for the children or disclosing their location. This evidence permitted the trial court to find that Mother knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions that threatened their physical and emotional well-being.

The domestic-violence and physical-abuse evidence reinforced that conclusion. The reported conduct was not limited to ordinary discipline or an isolated incident. It included beatings with objects, hair pulling, slapping, a punch that allegedly caused a seizure, and an incident in which Father held a gun to a child’s head and pulled the trigger. Mother knew Father was violent, had experienced his abuse herself, and had been urged by relatives to leave. Yet she did not remove the children from Father or otherwise protect them. Her failure to act supported both the environmental finding under subsection (D) and the conduct-based finding under subsection (E).

The drug evidence did not depend on a positive laboratory result. The children reported seeing Mother use white powder and pills, Mother admitted prior drug use, and relatives described drug use within the household. Mother failed to test at the beginning of the case, waited until shortly before trial to begin testing, missed multiple requested weekly tests, and refused hair-follicle testing. The trial court could assess those omissions together with the direct reports of drug use and the broader evidence of instability and neglect.

Mother’s completion of some court-ordered services did not compel a contrary result. She remained difficult to contact, did not maintain stable housing or employment, failed to provide releases allowing the Department to verify counseling, and did not demonstrate that she had remedied the dangers that led to removal. The court could reasonably distinguish participation in services from lasting behavioral change.

The best-interest evidence likewise favored termination. The children had not seen Mother after removal and did not want to return to their parents. Their relative caregivers addressed their schooling, medical care, behavioral needs, and sibling relationships. The children had made progress and were living in stable homes with caregivers who wanted to adopt them. Against that evidence, Mother had not established stable housing, employment, sustained sobriety, or an ability to protect the children from violence and neglect.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(D). Mother knowingly allowed the children to remain in dangerous conditions marked by physical abuse, domestic violence, unstable housing, inadequate food, lack of schooling, deficient hygiene, and unmet medical needs.

The court separately held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under § 161.001(b)(1)(E). Mother’s conduct and omissions—including failing to protect the children from Father’s abuse, exposing them to domestic violence and drug use, chronically neglecting their basic needs, abandoning them with relatives, and failing to comply consistently with drug testing—supported a finding of an endangering course of conduct.

The court also upheld the best-interest finding. The severity and duration of the danger, the children’s stated preferences, Mother’s failure to demonstrate lasting change, and the stability and success of the relative placements permitted the trial court to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children’s best interest. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the termination judgment.

Practical Application

For petitioners seeking termination or restrictive conservatorship orders, In re D.N. demonstrates the importance of presenting an integrated chronology rather than litigating each allegation in isolation. School records, medical and dental records, hotel or housing records, photographs, criminal records, Department referrals, drug-testing histories, and testimony from children, relatives, teachers, and caregivers can collectively establish an endangering environment and course of conduct.

In custody and modification cases involving an abusive partner, counsel should focus not only on the alleged perpetrator’s conduct but also on the other parent’s knowledge and protective response. A parent’s status as a domestic-violence victim does not automatically establish endangerment, but knowingly leaving children exposed to repeated violence or serious physical abuse can support adverse findings. The evidentiary presentation should distinguish the parent’s victimization from the parent’s decisions concerning the children’s safety.

Drug testing should be addressed with precision. Negative tests may not resolve the issue if testing began late, significant gaps exist, or the parent refused a different testing method. Counsel representing the tested parent should document every request, appearance, result, scheduling problem, prescription, and alleged refusal. Counsel seeking an endangerment finding should offer a clear testing timeline and connect missed tests to other evidence of substance use and instability.

Service-plan completion should not be presented as a checklist divorced from changed behavior. The more persuasive evidence concerns whether counseling produced insight, whether the parent ended the dangerous relationship, whether housing and employment became stable, whether sobriety was consistently verified, and whether the parent demonstrated an ability to meet the children’s educational and medical needs.

For relative placements, practitioners should develop evidence concerning stability, licensing efforts, adoption plans, sibling access, educational progress, therapy, medical treatment, and the children’s expressed preferences. That evidence can be decisive in the best-interest analysis because it allows the trial court to compare the parent’s unresolved risks with a concrete and functioning permanency plan.

Checklists

Build the Endangerment Record

• Prepare a dated chronology of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, drug use, housing instability, and Department involvement.
• Separate evidence concerning environmental conditions under subsection (D) from parental conduct under subsection (E).
• Obtain school attendance, enrollment, withdrawal, and academic records.
• Obtain medical, dental, therapy, and pharmacy records.
• Document food insecurity, inadequate hygiene, unsafe housing, and periods without adult supervision.
• Preserve photographs of injuries, living conditions, clothing, and untreated medical or dental problems.
• Identify corroborating relatives, teachers, caseworkers, medical providers, and caregivers.
• Connect each dangerous condition to the parent’s knowledge.
• Prove what protective alternatives were offered and how the parent responded.
• Address the duration and recurrence of each condition rather than relying only on isolated events.

Develop Domestic-Violence and Failure-to-Protect Evidence

• Identify every incident the children witnessed or experienced.
• Determine when the parent learned of the violence.
• Obtain police reports, protective orders, bond conditions, criminal judgments, and medical records.
• Document threats involving weapons, strangulation, choking, or serious bodily injury.
• Identify relatives or service providers who urged the parent to leave or offered assistance.
• Establish whether the parent returned the children to the alleged abuser.
• Document safety planning, shelter use, counseling, and protective steps actually taken.
• Avoid conflating victimization with endangerment; focus on knowing exposure of the children to danger.

Present Drug-Testing Evidence

• Create a table listing every requested test, due date, testing method, appearance, refusal, and result.
• Distinguish urine, oral-fluid, nail, and hair-follicle testing.
• Authenticate laboratory reports and chain-of-custody records.
• Document missed tests and the explanations offered for each absence.
• Identify whether testing began only shortly before trial.
• Compare testing compliance with witness reports of drug use.
• Address prescribed medications and potential alternative explanations.
• Obtain the relevant court orders and service-plan provisions.
• Do not characterize all missed tests as positive tests unless controlling authority and the record permit that inference.

Demonstrate Genuine Remediation

• Verify completion of counseling, parenting classes, substance-abuse treatment, and domestic-violence services.
• Obtain releases and admissible records from service providers.
• Present evidence of insight and behavioral change, not merely certificates of completion.
• Establish stable and appropriate housing.
• Establish lawful income or other reliable financial support.
• Demonstrate consistent visitation and appropriate conduct during visits.
• Show sustained compliance with drug testing.
• Prove that the parent ended or safely managed relationships presenting a danger to the children.
• Address every condition that led to removal with concrete evidence of remediation.

Prepare the Best-Interest Case

• Develop admissible evidence of each child’s needs and preferences.
• Document progress in the current placement.
• Establish how educational, therapeutic, medical, and dental needs are being met.
• Present a specific permanency plan rather than a generalized promise of future stability.
• Address sibling contact and the caregivers’ plans to preserve those relationships.
• Compare the stability of the proposed placement with the parent’s current circumstances.
• Explain how the predicate-ground evidence affects future risk.
• Address contrary evidence candidly, including completed services and negative drug tests.
• Show why the proposed disposition meets the children’s long-term—not merely immediate—needs.

Preserve a Sufficiency Challenge

• Object to inadmissible hearsay and obtain explicit rulings.
• Challenge the authentication and foundation for records.
• Identify which evidence pertains to subsection (D), subsection (E), and best interest.
• Preserve disputes over drug-testing inferences.
• Develop explanations for housing instability, missed testing, or interrupted services.
• Present evidence of changed conditions through disinterested witnesses when available.
• Request sufficiently specific findings when procedurally appropriate.
• Challenge each predicate finding carrying potential collateral consequences.
• Brief legal and factual sufficiency separately under the clear-and-convincing standard.
• Address the entire record rather than discussing favorable evidence alone.

Citation

In re D.N., No. 14-26-00343-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~2094a497-2ad4-4ba5-b042-2e92a1663467~~