Section 161.001(b)(1)(F) Nonsupport | In re C.Q.-G.D. (2026)

In the Interest of C.Q.-G.D., a Child, 11-26-00130-CV, October 22, 2026.

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

Synopsis

The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(F) where the father provided no financial support for the child during the relevant statutory period despite evidence bearing on his ability to contribute. Because the record also supported the best-interest finding, and the trial court did not reversibly err by requiring the father to attend the final hearing in person, the court affirmed the termination order.

Relevance to Family Law

In re C.Q.-G.D. is particularly important in private termination and stepparent-adoption litigation. It confirms that complete nonsupport can establish a predicate ground for termination, but Section 161.001(b)(1)(F) still requires proof tied to the parent’s ability during a qualifying one-year period; the absence of payments, standing alone, should not be treated as eliminating the ability component. The case also underscores the need to develop the evidentiary record concerning employment, income, resources, expenses, access to the child, requests for support, and any claimed inability to pay.

The decision has implications beyond termination proceedings. In custody and divorce litigation, the same evidence may affect conservatorship, possession, child-support enforcement, reimbursement claims, credibility, and best-interest determinations. Counsel should nevertheless distinguish a failure to satisfy a support order from the more exacting statutory showing required to permanently terminate the parent-child relationship.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The child was born in October 2020. Mother testified that she and the father had lived together during the pregnancy, that the father knew about the pregnancy, and that he knew the child had been born. According to Mother, the father saw her carrying the infant in a baby carrier two days after the birth.

Mother testified that the father never met the child, spoke with the child, requested visitation, or asked to establish a relationship with him. She denied preventing the father from having access. She maintained the same telephone number and continued to live at a location known to the father.

The father also provided no financial support for the child. Mother testified that he had never contributed money for the child’s care. She further testified that, while the parties previously lived together, he did not contribute to household expenses. At one point, according to Mother, the father offered to sign a document relinquishing his parental rights if Mother paid him.

Mother and the child’s stepfather filed a private termination proceeding and sought to permit the stepfather to adopt the child. They were the only witnesses at the final hearing.

The father repeatedly requested permission to appear remotely. His asserted grounds included temporary out-of-town employment, indigency, limited transportation, a herniated disc, and an outstanding Taylor County arrest warrant arising from a fine. The trial court had allowed him to participate remotely in an earlier hearing but required in-person attendance at the final hearing because witness testimony, cross-examination, and credibility determinations would be involved. The father did not attend the final hearing.

The trial court found three predicate grounds for termination: abandonment with an intent not to return under Section 161.001(b)(1)(A), leaving the child without adequate support while remaining away for at least six months under subsection (C), and failure to support the child according to the father’s ability during the statutory one-year period under subsection (F). It also found that termination was in the child’s best interest.

Issues Decided

The father presented five appellate issues:

Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(A).
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(C).
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(F).
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion, violated the father’s right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or caused the rendition of an improper judgment by denying his requests to appear remotely at the final hearing.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory predicate ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest. “Clear and convincing evidence” means proof sufficient to produce in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction that the allegations are true. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 101.007, 161.001(b).

Section 161.001(b)(1)(F) authorizes termination when a parent has:

failed to support the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition.

The subsection therefore requires identification of a qualifying one-year period and evidence that the parent failed to provide support consistent with the parent’s ability during that period.

For legal sufficiency, the reviewing court asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, credits reasonable resolutions of disputed facts supporting the judgment, and disregards contrary evidence the factfinder reasonably could have disbelieved. The court may not, however, disregard undisputed evidence contrary to the finding. See 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 reviewing court weighs disputed evidence contrary to the finding against the evidence supporting it. Giving appropriate deference to the factfinder, the court determines whether the entire record permitted a reasonable firm belief or conviction as to the finding. See 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 also reiterated that termination is a measure of last resort. Because termination permanently severs the parent-child relationship, courts must apply the clear-and-convincing standard with due regard for the constitutional interests involved. See In re K.N., 741 S.W.3d 165, 178 (Tex. 2026); In re H.S., 741 S.W.3d 4, 16–17 (Tex. 2026).

Only one predicate ground under Section 161.001(b)(1) is ordinarily necessary to support termination when the evidence also supports the best-interest finding. Thus, affirmance of the subsection (F) finding made it unnecessary to sustain every alternative predicate ground found by the trial court.

Application

The subsection (F) analysis turned on more than the mere absence of formal child-support payments. Mother testified that the father had never provided any financial assistance for the child. This was not a case involving sporadic, partial, or disputed support; the evidence permitted the trial court to find a complete failure to contribute.

The surrounding circumstances also informed the ability component. The record contained evidence relevant to the father’s work and financial circumstances, including his own representations that he had taken temporary employment. Although he claimed indigency and transportation limitations when seeking remote participation, the trial court, as factfinder, was entitled to assess the credibility and weight of those assertions against the record as a whole. The statutory question was not whether the father had the ability to pay a particular guideline amount. It was whether he supported the child according to whatever ability he possessed during the applicable one-year period.

Mother’s testimony also allowed the trial court to reject any suggestion that the father’s noninvolvement resulted from concealment or obstruction. She testified that he knew about the pregnancy and birth, knew where she lived, had her telephone number, and was never told that he could not see the child. Nevertheless, he did not visit, communicate with, or financially support the child.

Those facts also bore on best interest. The father had no relationship with the five-year-old child and had made no meaningful effort to assume parental responsibilities. The proceeding was brought by Mother and Stepfather in connection with a requested stepparent adoption. Viewing the evidence under the heightened standard, the appellate court concluded that the trial court could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest.

As to remote participation, the father had been informed months before trial that the court would require him to appear in person for the final hearing. The court identified credibility evaluation, testimony, and cross-examination as reasons for proceeding in person. The father’s final request relied in part on avoiding arrest under an outstanding Taylor County warrant, as well as financial and transportation limitations. His attempted verification did not comply with the Texas requirements for an unsworn declaration because it omitted the location of execution. On the record presented, the trial court’s decision to require an in-person appearance did not warrant reversal.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(F). A parent’s failure to provide any financial support may establish subsection (F) when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent failed to support the child according to the parent’s ability during a qualifying one-year period ending within six months before the petition was filed.

Because one supported predicate ground was sufficient, the subsection (F) determination sustained the predicate-ground component of the termination judgment without requiring affirmance on every alternative ground found by the trial court.

The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support the best-interest finding. The father’s total lack of contact and support, his failure to pursue a relationship despite knowing about the child and how to reach Mother, and the child’s circumstances permitted the trial court to form the required firm belief or conviction.

Finally, the court rejected the father’s challenge to the denial of remote participation. The trial court acted within its authority in requiring in-person participation at a contested final hearing involving testimony, cross-examination, and credibility determinations, and the father did not establish reversible error. The Eleventh Court affirmed the termination order.

Practical Application

For a petitioner relying on subsection (F), proof of “no support” should be paired with affirmative evidence of ability. Counsel should not assume that evidence of zero payments necessarily proves the full statutory ground. Develop employment history, earning capacity, bank records, tax returns, benefits, housing arrangements, recurring expenses, property ownership, and the parent’s ability to make even modest contributions.

The statutory window should be identified precisely. Plead and prove a specific one-year period that ended no more than six months before the termination petition was filed. A timeline exhibit can prevent the case from becoming vulnerable to a technical sufficiency challenge.

Counsel should also anticipate defenses based on unemployment, disability, incarceration, homelessness, or interference by the managing parent. Where inability is claimed, examine whether it existed for the entire statutory period and whether the parent provided any noncash support, gifts, necessities, insurance, or direct payments. Where interference is claimed, develop evidence concerning known addresses, telephone numbers, written requests for access, parentage proceedings, attempted payments, and available registry or court-payment options.

Respondents should not defend a subsection (F) case solely by emphasizing that no support order existed. The statutory obligation examined in a termination case is not necessarily coextensive with enforcement of a prior support order. A parent who knew of the child and possessed some ability to contribute may face subsection (F) exposure even in the absence of a prior adjudicated monthly obligation.

The remote-appearance ruling provides a separate litigation lesson. A party seeking remote participation in a final termination hearing should present competent, properly verified evidence; address how exhibits, testimony, consultation with counsel, and cross-examination will be handled; and explain why remote participation will not impair credibility determinations. Repeated conclusory motions based on transportation problems or a desire to avoid an outstanding warrant are unlikely to preserve a persuasive due-process complaint.

Checklists

Proving Nonsupport Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(F)

Identify the filing date of the termination petition.
Select a continuous one-year period ending within six months before that filing date.
Plead the relevant statutory period clearly.
Prove that no support, or support inconsistent with the parent’s ability, was provided during that period.
Obtain employment, payroll, tax, banking, and benefits records.
Develop evidence of earning capacity and available resources.
Address cash payments, in-kind support, gifts, insurance, and direct purchases.
Establish the parent’s knowledge of the child and means of contacting the managing parent.
Address whether support was requested, refused, returned, or obstructed.
Connect each item of financial evidence to the statutory one-year period.

Defending a Subsection (F) Claim

Determine whether the petitioner identified a legally qualifying one-year period.
Document unemployment, disability, incarceration, or other limitations on ability to pay.
Preserve records of every payment, purchase, gift, and in-kind contribution.
Obtain proof of attempted payments that were refused or returned.
Document efforts to locate or contact the child and managing parent.
Distinguish an inability to pay from a refusal to pay.
Explain gaps in employment with corroborating documents and witnesses.
Contest unsupported assumptions about income or earning capacity.
Present evidence covering the entire statutory period, not merely the months immediately before trial.
Request findings that separately address the parent’s ability and the amount or nature of support provided.

Building the Best-Interest Record

Develop evidence of the child’s current emotional and physical needs.
Establish the nature and duration of the parent-child relationship.
Document visitation, communications, gifts, and parental decision-making.
Address the stability of the child’s present placement.
Present evidence concerning the proposed stepparent adoption, if applicable.
Explain the petitioner’s future plans for the child.
Address any excuses offered for the parent’s absence or noninvolvement.
Avoid treating proof of a predicate ground as an automatic substitute for best-interest evidence.
Request express findings on the principal best-interest facts.

Requesting Remote Participation

File the request sufficiently before the final hearing.
Cite the governing procedural authority.
Support factual assertions with a properly sworn affidavit or compliant unsworn declaration.
State the location where an unsworn declaration is executed.
Provide medical records if health limitations are asserted.
Provide financial documentation if indigency is asserted.
Explain why in-person travel is not reasonably possible.
Propose procedures for exhibits, witness examination, private attorney consultation, and technology failures.
Address the court’s ability to evaluate credibility remotely.
Preserve objections and obtain an express ruling.

Avoiding the Appellant’s Procedural Position

Do not assume that remote participation at a preliminary hearing guarantees remote access at trial.
Do not wait until days before trial to substantiate logistical or medical barriers.
Do not rely on an improperly verified motion.
Do not treat an outstanding local warrant as a substitute for demonstrating legal or practical impossibility.
Seek mandamus or other timely relief when appropriate rather than simply failing to attend.
Make a complete offer of proof concerning the testimony and evidence the absent party would have presented.
Explain specifically how exclusion from the hearing probably caused an improper judgment.

Citation

In re C.Q.-G.D., No. 11-26-00130-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 22, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~2f5941a2-663b-4699-9532-65ca55116aea~~

Share this content: