Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed three young children from their parents in May 2024 because of domestic violence, unstable housing, and drug use. The parents had been living with the children in a vehicle. Mother tested positive for THC, while Father tested positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, and THC. Father was incarcerated throughout the case.
During the bench trial, the Department changed its permanency goal from terminating both parents’ rights to reunifying the children with Mother while terminating Father’s rights. The children returned to Mother in December 2025 and remained with her. The trial court ultimately appointed Mother sole managing conservator and terminated Father’s parental rights under four statutory grounds, including endangerment, after finding termination was in the children’s best interest.
Father challenged the trial court’s failure to enter a final order within the Family Code’s 90-day deadline, the evidentiary sufficiency of the termination findings, and the conservatorship ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the trial court violated the mandatory 90-day deadline in Texas Family Code section 263.4011, that deadline is not jurisdictional. Because Father did not raise the violation in the trial court and first complained about it on appeal, he failed to preserve the issue.
The court expressed serious concern that the Department had presented a severely underdeveloped record, with less than 30 minutes of testimony concerning Father and no exhibits. Nevertheless, applying the deferential standards for legal and factual sufficiency review, it held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination for endangerment under section 161.001(b)(1)(E). The evidence included domestic violence in front of the children, the oldest child’s fear of Father, Father’s drug use and criminal history, his lengthy incarceration and resulting absence, and the parents’ prior homelessness with the children.
The same evidence, together with Mother’s and the caseworker’s testimony about the children’s safety and emotional needs, supported the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. Because one predicate ground and the best-interest finding were sufficiently supported, the court did not address the other predicate grounds. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint Father as a managing or possessory conservator.
Key Takeaways
- The Family Code’s 90-day deadline for rendering a final order in a termination case is mandatory but not jurisdictional, so a party must timely raise noncompliance in the trial court.
- Domestic violence witnessed by children, drug use, repeated criminal conduct, incarceration, prolonged absence, and unstable living conditions can collectively support an endangerment finding.
- The court affirmed despite sharply criticizing the Department’s minimal evidentiary presentation in a proceeding permanently severing the parent-child relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that preservation rules apply even when a trial court violates a mandatory deadline in a parental-termination case. A parent who waits until appeal to object to a section 263.4011 violation may lose the ability to obtain appellate review of that error.
The opinion also warns trial courts and the Department that appellate courts can review only the evidence placed in the trial record. Although the evidence here survived heightened sufficiency review, the court emphasized the constitutional stakes and the risk created by attempting to justify permanent termination—particularly an endangerment finding with potential consequences in future cases—on a sparse record.