Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated proceedings in April 2022 to terminate the parental rights of Lauren D. and the children’s father regarding their then-3-year-old son J.A.V. and 1-year-old daughter J.B.V. The removal was based on unsanitary living conditions, the parents’ methamphetamine use, mental health concerns, and a history of domestic violence between the parents. In September 2023, the parties entered a mediated settlement agreement making the Department permanent managing conservator while the parents retained supervised visitation rights. In December 2024, the Department filed a modification petition seeking termination after determining the parents had not adequately addressed the underlying issues.
At trial in August 2025, evidence showed that neither parent had completed required services over more than three years. Lauren D. had been discharged from individual counseling for missing appointments and made no effort to reengage. She tested positive for illegal substances and later gave birth to another child during the legal proceedings, who was removed due to her positive drug test. The father was incarcerated multiple times, including for domestic violence against Lauren D., yet she continued their relationship after his release. Neither parent maintained contact with the children for over a year, and both were living in a motel room without stable housing or verified employment.
The trial court terminated both parents’ parental rights on subsections (D) and (E) grounds (endangerment to the child’s physical or emotional well-being). Lauren D. appealed, raising questions about whether the trial court had complied with amended statutory requirements requiring specific findings about the Department’s reasonable efforts to reunify families.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the termination as modified. First, regarding Lauren D.’s argument that the trial court improperly terminated on subsection (E) grounds not explicitly mentioned during closing argument, the court held that the Department’s pleadings clearly sought termination on subsection (E) from the original petition through trial, and oral omission at closing does not constitute abandonment absent an affirmative act showing intent to relinquish the claim.
Second, the court determined that amended provisions of the Texas Family Code requiring trial courts to make specific written findings about the Department’s reasonable efforts to return children to their parents applied to this modification proceeding, even though the original petition was filed before the statutory effective date. The court reasoned that a petition to modify a prior order is itself “a suit affecting the parent-child relationship” under Texas Family Code § 101.032, triggering the statutory requirements. The court abated the case and remanded for the trial court to enter the required supplemental findings, which the trial court subsequently did.
The trial court’s supplemental findings documented that the Department implemented a comprehensive family safety plan with progressive steps for parenting skills, substance abstinence, and therapy, constituting reasonable efforts at reunification. However, the trial court found a continuing danger in the home preventing return because neither parent completed the safety plan, the mother never completed therapy despite opportunity to reengage, the mother continued using illicit substances, she concealed a pregnancy resulting in another child’s removal, both parents lacked stable housing, and the father was frequently incarcerated. The appellate court found this evidence factually sufficient, noting that unobjected-to hearsay testimony retains probative value and the trial court as factfinder was free to disregard contradicting testimony from Lauren D.
Key Takeaways
- A petition to modify a prior custody order is treated as a new “suit affecting the parent-child relationship” for purposes of applying newly enacted statutory requirements, even when using the same cause number.
- Trial courts must make specific written findings describing the Department’s reasonable efforts to reunify families and the continuing dangers preventing return, as required by 2023 amendments to Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g).
- Unobjected-to hearsay evidence and caseworker testimony regarding prior caseworkers’ efforts can support trial court findings on reasonable efforts and continuing danger to the child.
- Failure to complete required services over multiple years, combined with continued substance use, domestic violence, lack of stable housing, and parental non-engagement with children’s treatment needs, supports endangerment findings justifying termination.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that the 2023 statutory amendments requiring documented reasonable efforts and specific findings about continuing dangers apply to modification proceedings filed after the effective date, even when the original petition predates the amendments. For child welfare practitioners and trial courts, the decision underscores the importance of maintaining detailed records of reunification efforts and ensuring compliance with heightened procedural requirements in termination cases. The ruling also reaffirms that parental behavior—particularly failure to complete court-ordered services despite years of opportunity, continued substance abuse, and continued engagement in patterns (domestic violence) that caused the initial removal—constitute substantial evidence of endangerment.
For parents involved in termination proceedings, the decision demonstrates the court’s expectation that parents will demonstrate concrete change and completion of services within a reasonable timeframe. The court’s emphasis on the parents’ lack of involvement in their children’s treatment and care, combined with environmental instability, shows that even completion of some services does not overcome termination when parents fail to address core issues or maintain meaningful parental involvement. The decision also reflects appellate willingness to enforce statutory procedural protections through remand, ensuring trial courts create the required written record regarding reasonable efforts before finalizing termination orders.