Section 161.001(b)(2) Best-Interest Finding Upheld | In re J.J.L. (2026)

In the Interest of J.J.L., a Child, 04-26-00248-CV, October 07, 2026.

On appeal from 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence supported the finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). Because Mother left at least one predicate termination ground unchallenged, and the best-interest requirement was satisfied, the court affirmed the termination order.

Relevance to Family Law

In re J.J.L. reinforces two points central to termination practice. First, the Department must prove both a predicate ground under § 161.001(b)(1) and best interest under § 161.001(b)(2), but only one sustainable predicate ground is necessary. An appellant who attacks some grounds while leaving others unchallenged may have no route to reversal if the best-interest finding survives.

Second, trial counsel must build the best-interest record independently of the predicate-ground evidence, even though the same evidence may support both findings. Evidence concerning dangerous conditions, parental conduct, substance exposure, compliance with services, stability, credibility, and the child’s need for permanence may collectively support a firm belief or conviction that termination is in the child’s best interest.

The opinion also has implications for custody litigation outside the termination context. Although conservatorship and possession disputes do not ordinarily employ termination’s clear-and-convincing burden, evidence of unsafe supervision, accessible drugs, instability, and a parent’s response to intervention remains highly relevant to the best-interest inquiry. The decision has little direct application to characterization or division of marital property, but it illustrates why family-law litigators should preserve records concerning credibility, substance abuse, household safety, and compliance with court orders when those matters overlap with custody and property disputes.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department became involved after J.J.L., who was less than one year old, tested positive for THC. The child was taken to a hospital after becoming unresponsive, appearing pale, and exhibiting seizure-like activity. Medical evaluation determined that the child had ingested marijuana.

When the parents could not identify an appropriate family placement, the Department sought removal. It filed its termination petition on June 17, 2024.

The trial court conducted a two-day bench trial on November 14 and December 19, 2025. Mother testified on the first day but did not appear for the second day. The trial court also heard testimony from Father, the Department’s caseworker, and an owner and executive director of Carrie Bell Supervised Independent Living.

On March 19, 2026, the trial court signed an order terminating Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O). It separately found under § 161.001(b)(2) that termination was in J.J.L.’s best interest. Although Mother challenged the findings under subsections (D) and (E), she did not challenge the findings under subsections (N) and (O).

Issues Decided

The Fourth Court of Appeals addressed the following issues:

Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).
What effect Mother’s failure to challenge the predicate findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O) had on the termination judgment.
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that termination was in J.J.L.’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 161.001(b) requires the Department to establish two elements by clear and convincing evidence:

At least one predicate ground listed in § 161.001(b)(1); and
That termination is in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).

Under Texas Family Code § 101.007, clear and convincing evidence means proof sufficient to produce in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations.

For legal sufficiency, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and asks whether a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. The court assumes the factfinder resolved reasonably disputable facts in favor of the finding and disregards evidence the factfinder reasonably could have disbelieved. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002); In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005).

For factual sufficiency, the court considers the entire record, including contrary evidence, and determines whether the disputed evidence was so significant that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved it in favor of the challenged finding. In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006).

In a bench trial, the trial judge is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight assigned to testimony. An appellate court must defer to credibility determinations and reasonable inferences supported by the record. In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 312, 317 (Tex. 2021); In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 279 n.50 (Tex. 2024).

Only one predicate finding under § 161.001(b)(1) is necessary when the best-interest finding is also sustained. In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Findings under subsections (D) and (E), however, carry collateral consequences because they can support termination as to another child under subsection (M). Due process therefore requires appellate review of challenged (D) and (E) findings even when another predicate ground could independently sustain the judgment. In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 234–36 (Tex. 2019).

Under subsection (D), the focus is on whether the parent knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings. Under subsection (E), the focus is on whether the parent’s conduct constituted a conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being. Endangerment does not require proof that the parent directed the conduct at the child or that the child suffered an actual injury.

Drug use must be evaluated in context. Although illegal drug use alone may not always establish endangerment, a pattern of drug use combined with circumstances demonstrating danger to the child or impairment of the parent’s ability to parent can support an endangerment finding. In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 278.

Application

The appellate court reviewed the findings under the elevated evidentiary and appellate standards applicable to termination cases. The record began with a serious safety event involving a particularly vulnerable child: an infant became unresponsive, appeared pale, exhibited seizure-like activity, and was ultimately determined to have ingested marijuana. That evidence was relevant not merely as an abstract allegation of parental drug use, but as evidence of a concrete household danger that reached the child.

The court evaluated the evidence through the appropriate deferential lens. Because the case was tried to the bench, the trial judge was entitled to assess the witnesses’ demeanor, reconcile conflicts, and determine the weight to assign each witness’s testimony. The appellate court could not substitute its judgment merely because the record contained disputed evidence or might have supported competing inferences.

Mother’s appellate strategy also materially limited the relief available. She challenged the predicate findings under subsections (D) and (E), but she did not challenge the independent findings under subsections (N) and (O). Thus, at least one predicate ground remained available to satisfy § 161.001(b)(1), regardless of whether her arguments concerning every other ground would have succeeded.

The court nevertheless addressed the challenged (D) and (E) findings because those findings have consequences beyond the immediate case. Under In re N.G., an appellate court may not avoid reviewing challenged endangerment findings simply because another predicate ground independently supports termination.

The dispositive remaining question was best interest. Considering the record under both legal- and factual-sufficiency review, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination served J.J.L.’s best interest. The evidence contrary to that determination was not so significant that the trial court could not reasonably resolve the dispute in favor of termination.

Holding

The Fourth Court held that clear and convincing evidence was legally sufficient to support the best-interest finding. Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the evidence permitted a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in J.J.L.’s best interest.

The court also held that the evidence was factually sufficient. Considering the entire record, the contrary evidence was not so significant that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved the disputed evidence in favor of the best-interest finding.

Mother did not challenge the predicate findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O). Because only one predicate ground is required, those unchallenged findings supplied the necessary predicate basis for termination once the best-interest finding was sustained.

The court affirmed the order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Practical Application

For trial counsel, In re J.J.L. underscores the need to develop two connected but analytically distinct evidentiary tracks. Counsel should prove the statutory predicate grounds with specificity while separately organizing the evidence demonstrating why termination—not merely removal or restricted access—serves the child’s best interest.

In cases involving drug exposure, the strongest record will connect substance-related evidence to an actual parenting risk. Evidence that drugs were accessible to a young child, that the child suffered medical consequences, or that substance use impaired supervision carries substantially more force than a positive test standing alone.

For appellate counsel, the case is a warning against selectively challenging predicate grounds. If the termination order rests on multiple grounds, the brief should ordinarily challenge every ground that could independently sustain the judgment. Failure to attack even one predicate finding may leave best interest as the only meaningful path to reversal.

Counsel must also account for the special treatment of findings under subsections (D) and (E). Even if another ground is unchallenged, challenged endangerment findings require appellate review because of their potential use under subsection (M) in a later proceeding involving another child.

The same evidentiary principles can inform custody litigation. In an original SAPCR or modification case, counsel should connect allegations of substance abuse or unsafe living conditions to the child’s physical safety, emotional welfare, supervision, stability, and need for protective restrictions. The burden may differ from termination litigation, but fact-specific proof remains substantially more persuasive than generalized accusations.

Checklists

Building the Best-Interest Record

Identify each fact supporting the statutory predicate grounds.
Separately identify how each fact bears on the child’s best interest.
Present evidence of the child’s age, vulnerability, and specific needs.
Establish the nature and seriousness of any physical or emotional danger.
Connect substance use to supervision, judgment, accessibility, or household safety.
Document the parent’s response to services and safety interventions.
Develop evidence concerning stability, permanence, and the proposed placement.
Address less restrictive alternatives and explain why they would or would not protect the child.
Obtain express findings when necessary to preserve the basis for the judgment.

Litigating Drug-Exposure Allegations

Obtain medical records documenting symptoms, diagnosis, testing, and treatment.
Establish the child’s age and susceptibility to harm.
Identify how the child obtained access to the substance.
Determine who exercised possession, supervision, or control at the relevant time.
Document where drugs and related materials were stored.
Distinguish isolated use from a continuing course of conduct.
Connect drug use to impaired parenting or an unsafe environment.
Anticipate innocent-ingestion, accidental-exposure, and third-party-responsibility defenses.
Avoid relying solely on a positive drug test when additional contextual evidence is available.

Preserving a Termination Appeal

Challenge every predicate ground capable of independently supporting termination.
Present separate legal- and factual-sufficiency analyses.
Address the best-interest finding independently of the predicate grounds.
Identify all evidence contrary to the challenged finding.
Explain why the contrary evidence is significant under the clear-and-convincing standard.
Account for the deference afforded to credibility findings after a bench trial.
Request review of challenged subsections (D) and (E) under In re N.G.
Verify that the appellate brief addresses every ground stated in the written termination order.
Avoid assuming that reversal of one predicate ground will require reversal of the judgment.

Defending the Termination Judgment

Lead with any predicate grounds the appellant failed to challenge.
Explain that only one predicate ground is required in addition to best interest.
Address the elevated clear-and-convincing burden directly.
Tie favorable evidence to the factfinder’s credibility determinations.
Identify reasonable inferences supporting the judgment.
Analyze the entire record rather than treating drug-use evidence in isolation.
Defend subsection (D) and (E) findings separately when both are at issue.
Explain why contrary evidence did not prevent the factfinder from forming a firm belief or conviction.

Applying the Decision in Custody Litigation

Connect unsafe conduct to specific conservatorship or possession restrictions.
Develop evidence concerning supervision and the child’s physical environment.
Request drug-testing provisions that are precise and enforceable.
Consider supervised possession when supported by identifiable safety risks.
Propose conditions for expanded possession tied to treatment, testing, or demonstrated stability.
Preserve medical and law-enforcement records related to exposure incidents.
Avoid conflating the termination standard with the burden governing ordinary custody determinations.
Frame requested relief around the child’s present safety and long-term stability.

Citation

In re J.J.L., No. 04-26-00248-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in In re J.J.L.

~~81a6effa-c3f7-4457-8c23-398ba78a8e19~~

Share this content: