Memorandum Opinion by Justice Meza, 04-25-00594-CV, February 11, 2026.
On appeal from the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County.
Synopsis
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights where the appellant failed to challenge the trial court’s endangerment findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court held that because a single predicate ground is sufficient to support termination, the unchallenged endangerment findings mooted challenges to other predicate grounds, leaving only the best interest determination for review. Despite evidence of a strong emotional bond between the father and his children, the court found the evidence of drug use, homelessness, and criminal instability sufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing standard for best interest.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this case serves as a stark reminder of the “all-or-nothing” nature of appellate challenges to predicate grounds in parental termination litigation. Under the In re N.G. framework, while an appellate court is required to review (D) and (E) findings when challenged due to their collateral consequences, a failure to challenge them effectively concedes the first prong of the termination statute. Furthermore, this opinion reinforces that a documented parental bond—often the centerpiece of a respondent’s trial strategy—will rarely outweigh evidence of environmental and conduct-based endangerment when the children have reached stability in a relative placement.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department of Family and Protective Services became involved in May 2024 following an incident where the Father was found unconscious outside a medical clinic while his three-year-old child wandered nearby. The subsequent investigation revealed a harrowing environment: the family was living in a makeshift tent in a wooded area, and adults were reportedly using methamphetamine in the presence of the children. Following the parents’ arrest for criminal trespass and drug offenses, the children were placed with relatives. At trial, the evidence demonstrated that while the Father was bonded to the children and attended visitations, he remained incarcerated and had failed to comply with his service plan. Conversely, the children were “thriving” in their placement with relatives, who intended to adopt.
Issues Decided
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether a termination judgment must be affirmed when the appellant fails to challenge all predicate grounds found by the trial court, specifically findings under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E); and (2) whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest under the Holley factors.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b), which requires a finding of at least one predicate ground and a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. It relied on the In re N.G. mandate, which necessitates that an appellate court uphold a termination if any one predicate ground is supported (or unchallenged) and the best interest finding is affirmed. For the best interest analysis, the court utilized the Holley v. Adams factors, weighing the children’s desires and the parental bond against the Father’s history of drug use, instability, and the Department’s plans for permanent placement. The court also adhered to the heightened “clear and convincing” standard of review required for the deprivation of constitutional parental rights.
Application
The court’s application of the law centered on the Father’s strategic omission in his appellate brief. By failing to contest the (D) and (E) endangerment findings, the Father effectively surrendered the predicate ground prong of the termination analysis. The court noted that it only needed to find one valid predicate ground to affirm; thus, it declined to even analyze the Father’s challenges to the (N) (constructive abandonment) and (O) (failure to comply with court order) findings.
In the best interest analysis, the court conducted a balancing test of the Holley factors. The Father’s primary defense—a strong emotional bond and consistent visitation—was acknowledged but found insufficient. The court contrasted this bond with the “firm belief” produced by evidence of the Father’s “makeshift tent” housing, methamphetamine use, and the children’s subsequent progress in a stable relative placement. The court determined that the children’s need for physical and emotional safety outweighed the preservation of a bond with a parent who could not provide a drug-free or stable environment.
Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that when a parent fails to challenge every predicate ground found by the trial court, the appellate court may affirm the termination based on the unchallenged grounds without reviewing the challenged ones. In this instance, the unchallenged (D) and (E) findings were sufficient to satisfy the predicate ground requirement of Section 161.001(b).
The court further held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could have formed a firm belief that termination was in the children’s best interest, given the Father’s history of substance abuse and the marked improvement in the children’s well-being since their removal and placement with stable family members.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for both Department and Respondent counsel. For Department attorneys, it highlights the importance of securing findings on (D) and (E) whenever the facts allow, as these are the most robust against narrow appellate challenges. For Respondent’s counsel, the case is a cautionary tale regarding briefing: failing to challenge endangerment findings is essentially fatal to the appeal unless the best interest evidence is extraordinarily weak.
Checklists
Appellate Briefing Strategy
- Challenge Every Predicate: Ensure the brief addresses every single subsection found by the trial court (e.g., D, E, N, O, P).
- Prioritize (D) and (E): Given the In re N.G. implications and the potential for these findings to impact future parental rights, these must be the primary focus of the sufficiency challenge.
- Isolate Best Interest: If the predicate grounds are strong, focus the narrative on the Holley factors that favor the parent, such as the bond, consistent visitation, and any recent steps toward rehabilitation.
Contesting the Best Interest Finding
- The Bond Factor: Document and present evidence of “quality” visitation to elevate the “desires of the children” and “parental bond” Holley factors.
- Stability vs. Blood: When children are with relatives, argue for a possessory conservatorship or a permanent managing conservatorship (PMC) as a less restrictive alternative to total termination of rights.
- Mitigating “Endangerment”: If (D) or (E) are based on past conduct (like the tent living in this case), focus trial evidence on the parent’s current ability to provide a safe environment or their successful completion of drug treatment.
Citation
In the Interest of T.L.K., Jr., S.M.C., and S.B.C., Children, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2026, no pet.) [Case No. 04-25-00594-CV].
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
~~f06946a0-648e-4a34-a32d-a0fb62d002ec~~
Share this content: