Texarkana Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Under Endangerment Grounds D and E

In the Interest of A.C. and E.C., Jr., Children, 06-25-00084-CV, March 31, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2, Gregg County, Texas

Synopsis

The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights based on legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) endangerment grounds (D) and (E). The court also held the evidence was sufficient to support the best-interest finding as to both parents, affirming the termination order in full.

Relevance to Family Law

Even outside SAPCR/termination dockets, this opinion matters to divorce and custody litigators because it reinforces (1) how appellate courts will review and sustain endangerment-based findings under the Supreme Court’s “holistic” framework, and (2) how trial courts’ credibility calls and reasonable inferences will be insulated on appeal under the clear-and-convincing standard. For custody disputes involving requested restrictions (supervised possession, geographic limitations, injunctions, or exclusive use), the opinion is a reminder that “endangerment” analysis is an aggregate, record-wide story—meaning your temporary-orders record, social-study evidence, drug/alcohol proof, housing and employment stability, and parent-child contact history can become the scaffolding for dispositive findings later.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department removed Ashley (14) and Edward (9) from the parents’ home. After a bench trial, the court terminated both parents’ rights and made predicate findings for each parent under four statutory grounds: endangering conditions or surroundings (D), endangering conduct (E), constructive abandonment (N), and controlled-substance use (O). Mother challenged legal and factual sufficiency on all predicate grounds and best interest; Father did not challenge the predicate grounds but did challenge the best-interest finding.

On accelerated appeal, the Texarkana court focused its analysis on grounds (D) and (E) (because of their unique collateral consequences in future cases) and the best-interest finding as to both parents. The opinion’s most important “fact” content is less about the granular family history (not fully reflected in the provided snippet) and more about the appellate lens: the court applied heightened clear-and-convincing review while emphasizing strong deference to the trial court on credibility and reasonable inferences, and it evaluated endangerment “holistically” under the Supreme Court’s recent line of cases.

Issues Decided

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination of Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (endangering conditions or surroundings).
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination of Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangering conduct).
• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest as to Mother and Father under § 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

The court grounded its analysis in the termination framework and the Texas Supreme Court’s current sufficiency and endangerment jurisprudence:

• Statutory requirements
  • TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1): predicate grounds, including (D) and (E) (endangerment), plus (N) and (O) (found by the trial court but not necessary to affirm if one ground plus best interest stands).
  • TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(2): best interest.
  • TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(M): collateral consequences of (D)/(E) findings in future termination proceedings.
• Burden of proof
  • Clear and convincing evidence required at trial. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002); D.V. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 722 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. 2025).
• Appellate sufficiency standards
  • Legal sufficiency: In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).
  • Factual sufficiency: In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018); deference to credibility and reasonable inferences: In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. 2024).
• Mandatory review of D/E when challenged
  • Due process requires appellate review of challenged (D) and (E) findings: In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019); In re M.P., 639 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. 2022); In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. 2022).
• Holistic endangerment review
  • Endangerment is evaluated in the aggregate and is not limited to drug-use cases: In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269; In re A.V., 697 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam); In re N.L.S., 715 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. 2025) (per curiam).
• Best interest
  • Nonexclusive Holley factors: Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976); best-interest review on the entire record: In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17; In re A.A., 670 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. 2023).

Application

Texarkana framed the case around the Supreme Court’s modern termination directives: courts must conduct an “exacting” review of the whole record, but they must also maintain a “healthy regard” for the constitutional rights at issue while deferring to the trial judge’s credibility determinations. Within that framework, the court emphasized two practice-driving points.

First, because (D) and (E) findings carry downstream consequences under § 161.001(b)(1)(M), an appellate court cannot sidestep sufficiency challenges to those grounds simply because some other predicate ground might also support termination. That directive—now entrenched after N.G., M.P., and J.W.—forces litigants and trial courts to treat endangerment proof as a primary objective, not a backup theory.

Second, the court applied the Supreme Court’s “holistic” endangerment review. Under that method, the question is not whether any single datapoint compels termination, but whether the aggregate weight of the endangering circumstances and endangering conduct supports a firm belief or conviction. The opinion reiterates that this holistic approach is broader than drug cases; it embraces the full constellation of instability, unsafe surroundings, poor decision-making, lack of protective capacity, and sustained course-of-conduct evidence that a factfinder can reasonably treat as endangering. And on sufficiency review, the appellate court will assume the trial court resolved disputed facts in favor of its findings when a reasonable factfinder could do so, while still accounting for undisputed contrary evidence.

On best interest, the court treated the Holley factors as guidance—not a checklist—and evaluated the record under the same firm-belief-or-conviction standard. Notably, even though Father did not contest predicate grounds, he did contest best interest, and the court still held the evidence sufficient as to him—highlighting that best interest can stand independently on record evidence tied to stability, risk, parental abilities, plans, and the children’s needs, not merely on a parent’s litigation posture.

Holding

The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination of Mother’s parental rights under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D). In doing so, the court applied the Supreme Court’s endangerment-sufficiency framework requiring deference to credibility determinations and a record-wide assessment of endangering conditions.

The court also held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination of Mother’s parental rights under § 161.001(b)(1)(E). Consistent with R.R.A. and A.V., the court treated endangerment as a holistic inquiry, permitting the factfinder to weigh the cumulative force of circumstances and conduct.

Finally, the court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2) as to both Mother and Father. The termination order was affirmed.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers, the opinion is less about novel doctrine and more about execution under the Supreme Court’s now-settled “D/E + best interest” appellate architecture. A few strategic takeaways translate directly to contested custody and divorce litigation where endangerment-adjacent themes drive conservatorship outcomes:

• Treat “holistic endangerment” as a trial theme, not an appellate buzzword. Build a coherent narrative tying (a) environment (home conditions, associates in the home, supervision, weapons, violence, utilities, cleanliness, transience) and (b) conduct (substance use, criminality, repeated poor judgment, failure to protect, noncompliance with services) into a single cumulative-risk story.
• Preserve D/E with specificity—because you can’t count on other grounds. If you represent the Department or an intervenor, make sure requested findings and the proof track the distinct elements of (D) and (E). If you represent a parent, force the opponent to separate “bad facts” from statutory endangerment and attack the causal link between the condition/conduct and the child’s exposure to loss or injury.
• Best interest remains a record exercise. If the record shows instability, weak parental abilities, unsafe choices, and limited protective capacity, appellate courts will defer to the factfinder’s reasonable inferences. Conversely, if you want to win best interest for a parent, you must create a record of concrete stability (housing, employment, sobriety verification, parenting behaviors, child-centered planning), not just intentions.
• In divorce/SAPCR cases, assume your temporary-orders record may become your “holistic” record. Substance-use allegations, mental-health crises, unsafe paramours, or repeated instability—if proven—often migrate from temporary restrictions to final conservatorship findings, and potentially into later modification or enforcement battles.

Checklists

Building a Defensible Ground (D) Record (Conditions/Surroundings)

• Identify the specific dangerous conditions in the home (not generalized “unstable” language).
• Prove the child’s exposure to those conditions (timeframe, frequency, access, supervision).
• Tie the conditions to risk of physical or emotional harm (caseworker testimony, photos, medical/school records, police reports).
• Develop corroboration beyond a single witness when possible (collaterals, service providers, relatives).
• Obtain explicit findings in the termination order referencing (D) elements and the time period at issue.

Building a Defensible Ground (E) Record (Course of Conduct)

• Frame conduct as a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course—not isolated incidents.
• Offer chronology: relapses, arrests, violence, missed visits, repeated unsafe partners, continued noncompliance.
• Include evidence of failure to protect (knowing exposure to dangerous persons or environments).
• Preserve credibility calls with live testimony when possible (cross-examination anchors, impeachment exhibits).
• Request written findings or orally announce key credibility determinations and factual bases.

Holistic Endangerment Proof (R.R.A./A.V. Approach)

• Assemble “aggregate weight” evidence:
• Substance use and testing history (including refusals).
• Housing and employment instability.
• Nonattendance/late attendance at visits and services.
• Criminal history, protective-order history, and law-enforcement contacts.
• Child’s behavioral, educational, and medical impacts.
• Ensure admissibility and foundation for records (business records, medical/school, law enforcement).
• Anticipate and rebut alternative explanations (mental health treatment engagement, sober supports, safe placement plan).
• Tie each category back to the child’s exposure and risk—not merely parental fault.

Best-Interest Record (Holley Factors Without Treating Them as a Checklist)

• Document the child’s current placement stability and needs (therapy, school, medical, routine).
• Prove parental abilities with specifics (protective capacity, supervision, decision-making, boundaries).
• Address the parent’s plan versus the Department/placement plan with concrete details (housing lease, employment proof, childcare arrangements).
• Show past performance as predictor of future conduct (pattern evidence).
• Preserve the child’s wishes appropriately (guardian ad litem, CASA, in camera where permitted/strategic).

Parent-Side Defense: Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Pitfalls

• Create a verifiable stability file: lease, utilities, paystubs, counseling attendance, NA/AA logs, sponsor testimony.
• Demand specificity: force the petitioner to articulate what is “endangering” and when the child was exposed.
• Neutralize aggregate-risk framing with counter-aggregate proof (safe supports, protective measures, sustained compliance).
• Do not concede best interest by under-trying it; present a realistic, child-centered plan with corroboration.
• Preserve error: targeted objections, offers of proof, and proposed findings where appropriate.

Citation

In the Interest of A.C. and E.C., Jr., Children, No. 06-25-00084-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 31, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c5e6712b-1093-4ac0-b3b3-b724d17469c1~~