Domestic Violence Supports Endangerment Findings | In re R.C.L. & J.J.L. (2026)

In the Interest of R.C.L. and J.J.L., Children, 04-26-00447-CV, November 10, 2026.

On appeal from 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Synopsis

Repeated domestic violence, cocaine use, and failure to address serious medical and dental needs constituted legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangerment under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The Fourth Court of Appeals emphasized that completing court-ordered services does not overcome proof that the dangerous conduct continued while the termination case was pending.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its evidentiary lessons apply directly to custody, divorce, protective-order, and modification litigation. A court evaluating conservatorship, possession, geographic restrictions, or supervised access may consider the same pattern evidence: recurring domestic violence, substance abuse, untreated health conditions, criminal conduct, and a parent’s inability to separate from a volatile partner.

The opinion also illustrates the limited value of “service completion” when the parent’s conduct does not materially change. Certificates from parenting classes, battering-intervention programs, counseling, or rehabilitation are helpful, but they are not substitutes for demonstrated behavioral stability. In custody litigation, counsel should therefore focus not only on whether a party completed services, but also on what happened afterward.

The case has a secondary application to property litigation in divorce proceedings. Domestic violence and substance abuse may affect requests for temporary exclusive use of the residence, temporary injunctions, allocation of debts caused by criminal or addictive conduct, reimbursement or waste claims, and attorney’s fees. The same police records, drug-testing evidence, medical records, and financial documents may bear simultaneously on conservatorship and the economic issues in the divorce.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a termination proceeding involving Father and his two young daughters, R.C.L. and J.J.L. The case arose after police responded to an April 2025 domestic-violence incident between Father and his live-in girlfriend, S.M. One child was reportedly present during the altercation. The incident was not isolated: the record reflected multiple calls for police service, an earlier confrontation involving a knife, and additional incidents after the Department became involved.

The Department also discovered significant unmet health needs. J.J.L. had substantial hearing loss associated with severe, ongoing ear infections that had not been properly treated. She later underwent cochlear-implant surgery so that she could use hearing aids. R.C.L., then approximately five years old, had twelve cavities and had lost most of her baby teeth. The caseworker attributed the child’s dental condition to neglect.

Father completed a number of court-ordered services. He underwent a psychological assessment, completed individual counseling and parenting classes, and participated in multiple domestic-violence programs. Those formal accomplishments, however, did not end the underlying conduct.

Father married S.M. while the case was pending, and their volatile relationship continued. Police were called after Father allegedly broke into the home through boards, and a later domestic-violence incident led Father to cancel a visit because he did not want the children to see his scratches. That incident resulted in charges for unlawful restraint and assault causing bodily injury to a family member. At trial, Father still could not clearly say whether he and S.M. remained together.

The record also linked Father’s cocaine use to the domestic violence. Although he initially tested negative after removal, he later tested positive for cocaine and admitted during couples counseling that he was continuing to use drugs. S.M. reportedly told the counselor that Father would remain stable for several months and then return to cocaine use and anger. Father entered a 45-day inpatient rehabilitation program in February 2026 and was discharged approximately one month before the final day of trial.

Father additionally faced several pending domestic-violence charges and had recently pleaded guilty to a fifth driving-while-intoxicated charge, for which he received ten years’ probation. Meanwhile, the Department developed a prospective relative placement with the children’s adult half-sister, who was willing to adopt them and had begun investigating services responsive to J.J.L.’s hearing and communication needs.

Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appealed.

Issues Decided

The Fourth Court of Appeals considered whether:

1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s motion to extend the statutory dismissal deadline under Texas Family Code section 263.401(b).

2. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support findings under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E).

3. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding under section 161.001(f) that a continuing danger prevented the children’s return to Father.

4. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to establish that termination was in the children’s best interests under section 161.001(b)(2).

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) permits termination when a parent knowingly places or knowingly allows a child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being. The subsection focuses primarily on the child’s environment, including the suitability of the home and the conduct of people in the home.

Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) applies when a parent engages in conduct, or knowingly places the child with a person who engages in conduct, that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being. Subsection (E) generally requires proof of a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct rather than a single act or omission.

“Endanger” does not require proof that a child suffered a concrete injury. Nor must the dangerous conduct be directed at the child. Domestic violence, criminal conduct, and substance abuse may create instability and expose children to a substantial risk of physical or emotional harm.

Because termination requires clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing court asks in a legal-sufficiency analysis whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the finding, could permit a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the finding. In a factual-sufficiency review, the court considers the entire record and determines whether disputed evidence contrary to the finding is so significant that the factfinder could not reasonably have formed that firm belief or conviction.

Under section 263.401(b), an extension of the statutory dismissal deadline requires the court to find that extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child’s continued placement in the Department’s temporary managing conservatorship and that continuing that appointment is in the child’s best interest. The focus is not merely on whether a parent needs more time; it is on whether extraordinary circumstances justify extending the child’s time in temporary care.

Termination also requires clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest. The analysis may include the child’s needs, existing and future danger, parental abilities, available programs, placement plans, stability, the parent’s acts or omissions, and any explanation offered for those acts or omissions. The same evidence may support both a predicate ground and the best-interest determination.

Application

The court evaluated Father’s conduct as a continuing pattern rather than a collection of unrelated incidents. The domestic violence predated the Department’s intervention, triggered the children’s removal, and continued after Father completed domestic-violence programming. One child was present during the April 2025 altercation, and an older sibling had previously become involved in separating Father and S.M. during an incident involving a knife. The repeated police calls, arrests, criminal charges, and continued relationship with S.M. supported the conclusion that the children’s environment remained unstable and dangerous.

Father’s cocaine use reinforced that conclusion. The evidence showed a positive cocaine test, an admission of continued drug use during the proceeding, and a connection between cocaine use, anger, and domestic violence. Although Father eventually entered inpatient treatment, he completed rehabilitation only shortly before trial. The trial court was entitled to evaluate that recent progress against the longer history of relapse and instability.

The children’s untreated health conditions supplied additional evidence relevant to their prior environment. J.J.L.’s severe ear infections progressed to significant hearing loss requiring surgery and hearing assistance. R.C.L.’s extensive dental decay was likewise evidence from which the factfinder could infer a sustained failure to attend to the children’s basic medical and dental needs.

Father relied on his completion of several services, but the appellate court treated completion and behavioral change as distinct questions. The trial court could credit Father for attending counseling and classes while still finding that his conduct after those services demonstrated continuing danger. In particular, the recurrence of violence and drug use during the case permitted the factfinder to conclude that Father had not internalized or implemented what the programs were intended to teach.

The prospective relative placement also provided evidence of a more stable plan for the children. Their adult half-sister was willing to adopt them and had investigated ASL instruction and speech-therapy resources responsive to J.J.L.’s needs. That evidence allowed the trial court to compare Father’s unresolved instability with a placement prepared to address the children’s particular medical and developmental needs.

Holding

The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father’s requested extension under section 263.401(b). A parent’s need for additional time to demonstrate stability does not, standing alone, require an extension, particularly when dangerous conduct continued during the case.

The court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under subsection (D). The recurring domestic violence within the household, Father’s continued association with the volatile relationship, and the children’s seriously neglected medical and dental needs supported a firm conviction that Father knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings.

The court likewise held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under subsection (E). Father’s cocaine use, repeated involvement in domestic violence, criminal conduct, and continuation of those behaviors after services began established an endangering course of conduct rather than an isolated lapse in judgment.

The court rejected Father’s challenge to the continuing-danger finding under section 161.001(f). The trial court could consider the recency of Father’s rehabilitation, his history of relapse, the unresolved relationship with S.M., and the continuation of domestic violence during the proceeding.

Finally, the court upheld the best-interest finding. The children’s substantial needs, Father’s pattern of violence and substance abuse, the instability surrounding his household, and the availability of a relative placement prepared to address the children’s needs supported the termination decision. The judgment was affirmed.

Practical Application

For counsel alleging endangerment, the central task is to prove a pattern. Police calls, body-camera footage, photographs, criminal case records, drug-test results, counseling admissions, canceled visits, medical records, and testimony from children or collateral witnesses should be organized chronologically. A timeline often demonstrates more effectively than isolated exhibits that the conduct continued before and after court intervention.

Counsel should also distinguish program attendance from behavioral progress. Cross-examination should address what the party learned, whether the party implemented any safety plan, whether contact with the violent partner continued, and whether additional incidents occurred after completion. A certificate proves completion; it does not prove rehabilitation.

For a parent defending against termination or seeking expanded possession, the case underscores the importance of early, sustained, and objectively verifiable change. Recent entry into rehabilitation, last-minute separation from a violent partner, or technical completion of services may carry limited weight when contradicted by later conduct. Counsel should develop corroborating evidence of sobriety, safe housing, compliance with treatment recommendations, separation from dangerous individuals, and consistent attention to the children’s health needs.

In custody and modification cases, practitioners should evaluate whether domestic violence between adults is affecting the children even when the children were not physically assaulted. Presence during an altercation, interruption of visitation, exposure to injuries, instability in the residence, and involvement in separating adults may all establish emotional or physical danger.

Medical and dental neglect should not be treated as peripheral evidence. Obtain the complete records, identify the duration and severity of the condition, and determine what treatment would ordinarily have been available. Expert or treating-provider testimony may connect the parent’s delay to the child’s pain, developmental impairment, or need for more invasive treatment.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record

• Obtain all police call sheets, incident reports, arrest records, photographs, and body-camera footage.
• Create a chronology identifying incidents before and after removal or temporary orders.
• Identify which children were present, heard the incident, saw injuries, or became involved.
• Subpoena drug-test records and document missed, refused, diluted, and positive tests.
• Determine whether substance use coincided with violence, missed visits, or criminal conduct.
• Obtain relevant counseling, treatment, and rehabilitation records through appropriate discovery and authorization procedures.
• Compare service-completion dates with later incidents.
• Document continued contact with an allegedly violent or dangerous partner.
• Preserve admissions made to caseworkers, counselors, evaluators, or treatment providers.
• Connect each item of evidence to conditions, conduct, continuing danger, or best interest.

Proving Medical or Dental Neglect

• Obtain complete pediatric, dental, audiology, pharmacy, and surgical records.
• Identify when symptoms first appeared and when treatment was first sought.
• Determine whether appointments were missed or recommended follow-up was ignored.
• Establish the severity and duration of the untreated condition.
• Identify any pain, infection, hearing loss, developmental delay, or invasive treatment resulting from delay.
• Secure testimony from treating providers when causation or severity may be disputed.
• Document the child’s current treatment plan and the proposed caregiver’s ability to follow it.
• Avoid overstating causation when the medical records support only neglect or delay.

Evaluating Claimed Rehabilitation

• Confirm actual completion rather than enrollment or partial attendance.
• Obtain attendance records, discharge summaries, and provider recommendations.
• Determine whether discharge was successful, administrative, or against advice.
• Ask whether the parent can articulate the skills taught in the program.
• Investigate incidents occurring after completion.
• Require objective sobriety evidence over a meaningful period.
• Verify compliance with aftercare, probation, medication, and counseling requirements.
• Assess whether the parent has ended or safely managed the dangerous relationship.
• Develop evidence of stable housing, employment, transportation, and medical follow-through.
• Do not rely exclusively on certificates or the parent’s self-report.

Defending a Parent Against an Endangerment Claim

• Begin services promptly and avoid waiting for a final trial setting.
• Correct unsafe housing conditions immediately.
• Establish a documented safety plan for domestic-violence risks.
• Comply with every drug test and preserve all negative results.
• Follow treatment and aftercare recommendations after inpatient rehabilitation.
• Avoid contact that violates protective orders, no-contact orders, or service-plan requirements.
• Address every medical, dental, educational, and therapeutic need of the child.
• Present neutral witnesses who can verify sustained behavioral change.
• Explain adverse events with corroborating evidence rather than general denials.
• Demonstrate stability over time, not merely in the weeks immediately preceding trial.

Preparing for the Extension Deadline

• Calendar the statutory dismissal date and all relevant extension deadlines.
• File any extension request sufficiently early for a meaningful hearing.
• Identify the specific extraordinary circumstances supporting the request.
• Explain why the circumstances were beyond ordinary delay or lack of diligence.
• Present a concrete plan and timeline for reunification.
• Address why continued temporary placement is in the child’s best interest.
• Show measurable progress already achieved.
• Anticipate evidence that dangerous conduct continued during the case.
• Avoid framing the request solely as the parent’s need for more time.

Citation

In re R.C.L. & J.J.L., No. 04-26-00447-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 10, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~9c06c726-1f8e-4a73-998a-a5930ae8541a~~