Family Code § 161.001(f)-(g) Findings Added by Modification | In re J.A.V. (2026)

In the Interest of J.A.V. and J.B.V., 04-25-00569-CV, July 08, 2026.

On appeal from 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

A termination order that fails to recite the findings required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g) is not necessarily reversible if the trial court later makes those findings in supplemental form and the omission is merely formal. In In re J.A.V., the Fourth Court of Appeals held it could modify the termination order to incorporate the supplemental findings, thereby curing the statutory defect and affirming the judgment as modified.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a parental-rights termination case, its practical significance extends to broader family-law trial and appellate practice, including modification suits, SAPCR final orders, conservatorship litigation, and any judgment requiring mandatory statutory findings. For Texas family-law litigators, the opinion is a reminder that not every defect in the face of a final order is fatal: some omissions can be treated as clerical or formal and corrected on appeal, while others may still create reversible error if the underlying findings were never actually made or if the record reflects a substantive pleading, notice, or sufficiency problem.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department originally filed a protection, conservatorship, and termination suit in 2022 involving Lauren D.’s children, J.A.V. and J.B.V. That first case ended not in termination, but in a mediated resolution under which the Department became permanent managing conservator and the parents were named possessory conservators with supervised visitation and support obligations.

In December 2024, the Department filed a modification suit seeking termination. By amended petition, it pursued termination against the mother under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O). At the August 2025 bench trial, the Department presented evidence of persistent instability: methamphetamine concerns, domestic violence between the parents, failure to complete services, lack of verified stability in housing and employment, and a prolonged absence from visitation. The evidence also showed a new child had recently been removed after the mother tested positive on a hair-follicle test.

The children’s circumstances underscored the permanency concerns driving the modification. J.A.V. had significant mental-health and behavioral needs and was in a residential treatment setting, while J.B.V. was placed with a foster family prepared to adopt both children. The Department’s witnesses tied the requested modification to the need for permanence and safety, and the trial court ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights.

On appeal, however, the mother challenged not only the evidentiary basis for termination, but also the form of the written termination order itself. Her lead complaint was that the order did not include the findings required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g). The appellate court addressed whether that omission required reversal or could be remedied by modifying the judgment to include supplemental findings the trial court later made.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court’s failure to include findings required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g) in the written termination order required reversal.
• Whether the court of appeals could modify the termination order to incorporate supplemental findings later made by the trial court under § 161.001(f) and (g).
• Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the § 161.001(f) and (g) findings.
• Whether the trial court terminated the parent-child relationship on a ground not pleaded by the Department.
• Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under § 161.001(b)(1)(D).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 161.001 governs involuntary termination of parental rights and, in specified circumstances, requires additional findings under subsections (f) and (g). Those findings are not decorative. They are part of the statutory framework that must support a valid termination judgment when the statute calls for them.

The Fourth Court’s disposition reflects two related appellate principles. First, when a written judgment fails to include something the trial court actually found, the defect may be treated as formal or clerical rather than substantive. Second, Texas appellate courts have authority to modify a judgment to make the written order conform to the record when the record demonstrates what the trial court actually decided and the omission does not undermine the validity of the judgment itself.

The opinion also operates against the background rule that termination judgments are strictly scrutinized because of the constitutional dimension of parental rights. Even so, strict scrutiny does not mean every drafting omission compels reversal. If the missing statutory findings were later supplied by the trial court and resolve the defect, the appellate court may affirm after modification rather than remand for a new judgment.

Application

The court treated the missing § 161.001(f) and (g) recitations as a problem in the wording of the final order, not as a failure of adjudication. That distinction drove the result. The appellate court did not understand the case as one in which the trial court never made the required statutory findings, nor as one in which the Department failed to establish them. Instead, the defect was that the signed termination order omitted findings that the trial court later made in supplemental form.

From there, the court took a practical appellate path. Rather than reverse a termination judgment that was otherwise supportable, it modified the order to include the supplemental findings. In doing so, the court effectively held that the statutory purpose of § 161.001(f) and (g) had been satisfied once the trial court’s later findings were incorporated into the judgment. The omission therefore did not require setting aside the termination decree.

That procedural cure mattered because the mother’s first two issues were linked: if the omitted findings could be validly incorporated, then the facial defect in the order disappeared, leaving only the challenge to the sufficiency of those findings. The court’s affirmance as modified indicates it concluded the supplemental findings were enough to support the judgment and that the omission was not the type of error warranting a retrial or remand for a new merits determination.

Just as important for appellate practitioners, the court’s handling of the case shows a preference for preservation of a valid judgment where the record permits correction without prejudice. The opinion signals that when a final family-law order contains a mandatory statutory omission, counsel should not assume the only remedy is reversal. If the trial court has actually made the required findings elsewhere in the record, modification may be available and may save the judgment.

Holding

The court held that a termination order’s failure to recite the findings required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g) does not automatically require reversal. Where the trial court later makes supplemental findings satisfying those statutory requirements, and the omission from the original written order is merely clerical or formal, the court of appeals may modify the order to include those findings.

The court further held that incorporating the supplemental findings cures the defect in the written termination order. On that basis, the Fourth Court modified the termination decree to add the § 161.001(f) and (g) findings and affirmed the judgment as modified.

By affirming as modified, the court necessarily rejected the argument that the omission itself invalidated the termination judgment. The decision confirms that, at least in this posture, the defect was one of memorialization rather than adjudicative substance.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers, In re J.A.V. is a drafting case disguised as a termination appeal. The cleanest lesson is still the simplest one: make sure the final order contains every required statutory finding before it is signed. In modification and termination practice, that means comparing the proposed decree against the governing Family Code provisions and against the actual grounds submitted and proved. A technically valid bench ruling can still generate avoidable appellate exposure if the written order is incomplete.

For appellate lawyers representing appellees, the case offers a useful salvage tool. If the order omits mandatory findings, examine the record for supplemental findings, separate findings of fact, oral pronouncements incorporated into later written findings, or any other signed document demonstrating that the trial court actually made the omitted determinations. Where the omission is formal rather than substantive, ask for modification rather than risk a broader remand.

For appellants, the case is equally instructive but in the opposite direction. A facial omission in a termination order is not enough by itself if the record contains curative supplemental findings. The stronger appellate attack will often be to challenge whether the findings were actually made, whether they were timely and properly entered, whether they truly satisfy the statute, whether the pleaded grounds and the findings align, and whether the evidence supports them. In other words, after In re J.A.V., a pure form-based complaint may not carry the day if the defect can be cured from the existing record.

The opinion also has broader resonance in SAPCR modification practice. Family-law orders frequently contain mandatory recitations tied to best interest, material and substantial change, geographic restrictions, support findings, enforcement predicates, and termination-specific statutory requirements. This decision reinforces a distinction practitioners should always keep in mind: omission of a required written finding may be curable when the trial court actually made it, but not when the record shows the finding was never made or the issue was never properly tried.

Checklists

Trial-Level Order Review Before Signature

• Compare the proposed final order against every applicable Family Code provision requiring express findings.
• Confirm that each termination ground in the order matches the grounds actually pleaded.
• Confirm that each finding in the order matches the grounds actually announced or found by the court.
• Review whether § 161.001(f) and (g) apply and, if so, ensure the exact required findings are included in the decree.
• Verify that the order contains all conservatorship, possession, child-support, and permanency findings required by statute.
• Cross-check party names, child names, cause number, court number, and dates for clerical accuracy.
• Ask the court to sign supplemental findings immediately if any mandatory finding is omitted.

Preserving a Curative Record for Appellees

• Obtain written supplemental findings as soon as an omission is identified.
• Ensure any supplemental findings are signed by the trial court and filed in the clerk’s record.
• Tie the supplemental findings clearly to the final termination order and the governing statutory subsection.
• In the appellate brief, frame the omission as clerical or formal rather than substantive.
• Request modification of the judgment expressly, rather than only arguing harmlessness.
• Show that the trial court actually made the omitted findings and that the record supports them.
• Demonstrate that incorporation of the supplemental findings does not alter the merits of the judgment.

Appellant’s Checklist for Attacking an Incomplete Termination Order

• Determine whether the missing finding was ever actually made by the trial court.
• Review whether any supplemental findings were timely, signed, and properly included in the record.
• Analyze whether the supplemental findings truly satisfy the language and requirements of § 161.001(f) and (g).
• Challenge any mismatch between pleaded grounds, tried issues, and final findings.
• Raise legal and factual sufficiency challenges to the curative findings, not just the omission.
• Assess whether the omission reflects a substantive failure of adjudication rather than a clerical drafting defect.
• Argue due-process prejudice if the judgment was effectively altered beyond mere memorialization.

Modification-Suit Practice Points

• In termination-by-modification cases, confirm that the pleading posture supports the specific grounds sought.
• Distinguish carefully between the prior SAPCR order and the modification pleadings.
• Make sure the final modified order clearly states the statutory basis for termination.
• Review whether the modification record establishes the findings necessary for both termination and the modified conservatorship structure.
• Anticipate appellate scrutiny on whether the trial court terminated on a ground not pleaded.
• Preserve objections to unpleaded theories and request clarification on the record before judgment is signed.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problem

• Do not rely exclusively on a facial-defect argument without examining whether the record contains curative findings.
• Do not assume every missing statutory finding compels reversal.
• Do not overlook supplemental findings when assessing appellate strategy.
• Do not separate form challenges from sufficiency challenges; they often rise or fall together.
• Do not permit a final order to be signed without a line-by-line statutory review in termination cases.

Citation

In the Interest of J.A.V. and J.B.V., No. 04-25-00569-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 8, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c3497de8-c38a-4227-8bda-f807e804165a~~