T. R. and P. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-26-00490-CV, October 23, 2026.
On appeal from 480th District Court of Williamson County
Synopsis
Clear and convincing evidence supported findings under Texas Family Code section 161.001(f) that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts and that a continuing danger nevertheless prevented the child’s return to Mother. Mother’s completion of referred services did not negate evidence that she continued her relationship with Father amid domestic violence, drug use, criminal conduct, and instability.
Relevance to Family Law
T.R. is important for termination and conservatorship practitioners because it distinguishes completion of a service plan from remediation of the conditions that placed a child at risk. A parent may attend counseling, submit to assessments, and complete other referrals, yet still face an adverse finding when post-service conduct demonstrates that the underlying danger remains.
The same evidentiary lesson applies in divorce and custody litigation involving domestic violence, substance abuse, protective orders, geographic restrictions, supervised possession, or requests to modify conservatorship. Counsel should focus not merely on formal compliance but on whether the client has implemented the services in daily life. Continued contact with an abusive partner, violations of possession restrictions, new arrests, unstable housing, and inconsistent accounts can substantially outweigh certificates showing completion of counseling or parenting classes.
The opinion does not alter Texas marital-property law. But in a divorce involving overlapping custody and safety disputes, financial records, hotel charges, criminal-theft evidence, prescription records, and communications between spouses may become relevant corroborating evidence of continued association, instability, or credibility.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This was the family’s second Department case involving A.M., an autistic, non-verbal child born in 2021. The first case arose from referrals concerning domestic violence in the child’s presence, incidents in which the child was left unattended, parental drug and alcohol abuse, physical confrontations, and public intoxication.
The first proceeding ended in November 2024 with an agreed final order naming Mother managing conservator and Father possessory conservator. Father’s possession was limited and supervised. The order prohibited Father from coming within 200 yards of Mother’s residence, prohibited both parents from consuming alcohol or illegal drugs before or during possession, and barred Mother from supervising Father’s visits or permitting unsupervised access without a court order.
The circumstances deteriorated soon afterward. In March 2025, Mother reported that Father had sexually assaulted her in her garage. The responding officer described Mother as frantic and incoherent and observed the child crying in an upstairs window. Father admitted that he and Mother had traveled together and that he had been staying with her, despite the prior order restricting his proximity to Mother’s residence.
The following month, Mother reported that Father was drugging and assaulting her and distributing recordings through the internet. A Florida child-welfare investigator located Mother and the child and obtained a urinalysis that was positive for amphetamine and marijuana. The child was removed and again placed with the maternal grandmother.
The Department referred Mother to tailored reunification services, and it did not dispute that she completed those services. Her conduct after completing or participating in services, however, remained central to the case. Mother continued associating with Father, and the couple committed a trespass and felony theft involving approximately $3,500 in pottery. Mother was arrested and later entered a mental-health diversion program.
In January 2026, Mother reported that Father assaulted her in an HEB parking lot. The arrest affidavit documented visible marks on her neck and difficulty swallowing. Father was arrested for family-violence assault, but Mother accepted several calls from him while he was incarcerated. Evidence also indicated that Mother later joined Father at a hotel after his release.
Following a two-day bench trial involving fifteen witnesses, the trial court terminated both parents’ rights. Among other findings, the court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to return the child and that, despite those efforts, a continuing danger remained in the parents’ homes.
Issues Decided
-
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child to Mother before trial.
-
Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that a continuing danger remained in Mother’s home despite those reunification efforts.
-
Whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest finding as to Mother.
-
Whether Father’s appointed counsel correctly concluded under the Anders procedure that Father had no nonfrivolous appellate issue, including no nonfrivolous challenge to the endangerment findings under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).
Rules Applied
Texas Family Code section 161.001(f) requires the pertinent findings that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child and that, despite those efforts, a continuing danger remains in the home that prevents the child’s return. Under section 161.001(g), the termination order must describe the Department’s reasonable efforts with specificity in a separate section.
Because this was a subsequent termination suit, the court also considered Texas Family Code section 161.004. That statute permits termination after an earlier order denying termination when the statutory requirements are established, including a material and substantial change in circumstances, a predicate act under section 161.001 committed before the earlier order, and the child’s best interest. Section 161.004(b) permits the trial court to consider evidence introduced during a prior termination proceeding involving the same child.
The Department was required to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 311 (Tex. 2021). That standard requires evidence sufficient to produce in the factfinder’s mind a firm belief or conviction regarding the truth of the allegations.
For legal sufficiency, the appellate court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and presumed that the factfinder resolved credibility disputes in favor of the judgment when it reasonably could have done so. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2009); In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005).
For factual sufficiency, the court weighed disputed evidence contrary to the finding against the evidence supporting it. Reversal is appropriate only when contrary evidence that could not reasonably have been credited is so significant that the factfinder could not have formed a firm belief or conviction. See In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 630–31 (Tex. 2018).
The appellate court also deferred to the trial judge’s first-hand assessments of witness credibility and demeanor. The heightened clear-and-convincing burden does not eliminate the deference owed to the factfinder. See In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014).
Application
Mother emphasized that she completed the services to which the Department referred her. The appellate court did not treat that evidence as dispositive. Service completion addressed whether the Department provided and Mother participated in reunification opportunities; it did not compel a finding that the risks necessitating intervention had been eliminated.
The record permitted the trial court to compare Mother’s formal compliance with her conduct after the first case and during the second proceeding. Despite a prior order designed to separate Father from Mother’s home and restrict his access to the child, the parents continued their relationship. The evidence included repeated domestic-violence allegations, continued contact following Father’s family-violence arrest, joint criminal conduct, drug use, and instability.
That evidence was particularly consequential because the same categories of danger had contributed to the Department’s earlier involvement. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the pattern was ongoing rather than historical. Mother’s continued association with Father also allowed the court to determine that she had not implemented the safety lessons underlying the services she completed.
The child’s age, autism, and inability to communicate verbally heightened the significance of a stable and protective home. The trial court was not required to wait for another injury before finding that the unresolved pattern constituted a continuing danger preventing return.
The court likewise deferred to the trial judge’s credibility determinations following a two-day bench trial with fifteen witnesses. Conflicting explanations and evidence favorable to Mother did not render the proof insufficient when the record as a whole permitted a firm belief or conviction in the challenged findings.
As to Father, the court independently reviewed the appellate record under Anders. It found no arguable appellate issue, including no nonfrivolous challenge to the trial court’s endangerment findings under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).
Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child to Mother. The Department referred Mother to tailored services, and Mother completed those services, demonstrating that reunification opportunities had been provided.
The court further held that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that a continuing danger remained in Mother’s home despite those efforts. Completion of services did not overcome evidence of Mother’s continuing relationship with Father, recurring domestic violence, drug use, joint criminal conduct, and instability.
The court also affirmed the termination order as to Mother, including the challenged best-interest determination.
As to Father, the court agreed with appointed counsel that the appeal was frivolous and without merit. After conducting its own review, the court found no nonfrivolous issue and affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights.
Practical Application
For Department’s counsel and attorneys ad litem, T.R. supports presenting the case as a comparison between the reason for each service and the parent’s subsequent behavior. A certificate of completion should not end the inquiry. The evidentiary presentation should connect counseling, domestic-violence education, substance-abuse treatment, and parenting instruction to later incidents showing whether the parent internalized and implemented those services.
For parents’ counsel, the decision underscores the need to prove behavioral change rather than administrative compliance. Evidence should address separation from unsafe partners, adherence to protective or conservatorship orders, sobriety outside scheduled testing, stable housing, lawful conduct, and the parent’s ability to identify and respond to risk. Counsel should anticipate that post-service conduct will carry greater persuasive weight than testimony that the client attended every session.
In custody modifications and divorce cases, T.R. provides a useful framework when a party claims that counseling or treatment has resolved prior safety concerns. Litigators should test that assertion against objective evidence: communications, call logs, police reports, criminal records, travel records, financial transactions, hotel records, drug tests, and third-party testimony.
The case also emphasizes the importance of precise termination orders. When section 161.001(f) applies, the proposed order should separately and specifically identify the Department’s reasonable efforts. A conclusory recitation risks creating an avoidable appellate issue under section 161.001(g).
Finally, counsel should organize the record around chronology. In a case involving recurring domestic violence or substance abuse, a timeline can demonstrate either meaningful change or repetition. The most persuasive question is often not whether the parent completed a service, but what the parent did after completing it.
Checklists
Proving Reasonable Reunification Efforts
- Identify each condition that led to removal.
- Match each referral to a specific identified safety concern.
- Introduce the service plan and proof that it was explained to the parent.
- Document referrals, appointments, transportation assistance, funding, and follow-up efforts.
- Establish whether providers tailored services to the parent’s needs.
- Address missed appointments, scheduling barriers, and the Department’s response.
- Obtain provider testimony or admissible records concerning participation and progress.
- Distinguish attendance from successful behavioral change.
- Draft a separate section of the termination order describing the efforts with specificity.
- Confirm that the evidence supports every specific effort recited in the proposed order.
Proving or Contesting Continuing Danger
- Build a dated chronology of events before, during, and after services.
- Identify conduct that repeats the conditions leading to removal.
- Collect police reports, arrest affidavits, protective orders, and criminal-case records.
- Obtain drug-testing records and address disputed or unexplained results.
- Preserve communications showing continued contact with an allegedly dangerous partner.
- Investigate hotel stays, travel, shared purchases, and other evidence of an ongoing relationship.
- Document compliance or noncompliance with supervised-possession and geographic restrictions.
- Develop evidence concerning housing, employment, transportation, and household stability.
- Explain how the child’s age, disability, or communication limitations affect the risk analysis.
- Address favorable and unfavorable evidence directly rather than leaving credibility disputes unexplained.
Representing a Parent Who Completed Services
- Do not rely exclusively on certificates of completion.
- Obtain testimony from providers concerning insight, progress, and application of learned skills.
- Present a concrete safety plan addressing future contact with the other parent.
- Prove sustained separation from persons who present a danger to the child.
- Demonstrate compliance with court orders through objective records.
- Present a meaningful period of negative drug tests rather than isolated results.
- Explain any new arrest, police contact, or inconsistent statement before the opposing party does.
- Establish stable housing and identify every adult with access to the home.
- Use neutral third-party witnesses to corroborate changed behavior.
- Connect each completed service to a specific, observable improvement in parenting or safety.
Preparing the Termination Order
- Include each statutory finding supported by the pleadings and evidence.
- Separate section 161.001(f) findings from other termination grounds.
- Describe the Department’s reasonable efforts with specificity as required by section 161.001(g).
- Avoid generic language stating only that “services were offered.”
- Identify the continuing dangers preventing the child’s return.
- Ensure that findings concerning each parent are individualized.
- Address best interest separately from predicate grounds and continuing danger.
- Confirm that findings applicable to a subsequent termination suit track section 161.004.
- Compare the proposed order against the reporter’s record before submission.
- Preserve objections to omitted, unsupported, or conclusory findings.
Preserving the Appellate Record
- Obtain rulings on all objections and offers of proof.
- Ensure that prior orders and relevant records from earlier proceedings are admitted or judicially noticed properly.
- Request findings that track the applicable statutory framework.
- Challenge both legal and factual sufficiency when supported by the record.
- Identify contrary evidence with record citations and explain why it is significant.
- Preserve complaints concerning the specificity required by section 161.001(g).
- Separate challenges to reasonable efforts, continuing danger, predicate grounds, and best interest.
- Account for the deference appellate courts give to credibility determinations.
- For endangerment findings under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E), address the collateral consequences recognized by Texas termination jurisprudence.
- Verify that all exhibits necessary for appellate review appear in the clerk’s or reporter’s record.
Citation
T. R. and P. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, No. 03-26-00490-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 23, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~66dba940-ccad-411f-ae44-6c7346e7b63f~~
Share this content: