Texas Supreme Court Reverses Appeals Court in Parental Rights Termination Case

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C., Children, 23-0965, June 13, 2025.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

Synopsis

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Father engaged in conduct that endangered his child’s physical or emotional well‑being under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The case is remanded to the court of appeals to address unresolved factual‑sufficiency and best‑interest issues.

Relevance to Family Law

Although a termination case, the opinion clarifies the evidentiary approach trial and appellate courts should take when assessing parental endangerment and the sufficiency of proof — principles that bleed into contested custody disputes and divorce litigation where parental fitness, stability, and foreseeable risk to a child’s well‑being are litigated. Practitioners should treat a parent’s criminal history, patterns of incarceration, evidence of instability, and the qualitative nature of parent‑child contact as probative of endangerment; conversely, litigators defending against removal or termination must frame causation, remediation efforts, and contemporaneous caregiving evidence to counter Section 161.001(E) allegations. Property division is not directly affected, but custody determinations informed by this precedent can influence spousal maintenance claims and litigation posture in divorce matters.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The children, N.L.S. (born 2015) and E.J.C., were removed after a neighbor reported repeated morning appearances of a five‑year‑old child at her home, hungry and in dirty clothes, and police discovered N.L.S. alone at the mother’s residence. Father has a long and escalating criminal history with multiple felonies, prior family‑violence convictions (not involving this child), and recent convictions in 2021 for multiple offenses including methamphetamine possession and assault of a family member; he was incarcerated at the time of trial. Father lived with the child’s mother only intermittently and had limited contact with N.L.S.; he could not describe basic facts about the child’s life and acknowledged he could not currently provide a safe, stable home. The Department’s caseworker testified to inconsistent statements and incomplete service engagement; the guardian ad litem recommended termination, emphasizing instability caused by Father’s repeated incarcerations.

Issues Decided

The Supreme Court addressed whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) that Father engaged in conduct or placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well‑being. The Court further determined that the court of appeals’ causal‑link analysis conflicted with this Court’s recent precedents and therefore reversed and remanded for consideration of unresolved factual‑sufficiency and best‑interest issues.

Rules Applied

The Court applied Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) and the clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard. It relied on this Court’s recent decisions in In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. 2024), and In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2021), interpreting endangerment and the permissible inferences from parental conduct, including criminal history and patterns that create foreseeable risk to a child’s physical or emotional well‑being. The Court reaffirmed that endangerment can be established without a discrete single act causing injury — a pattern of behavior that produces a substantial risk of harm is sufficient.

Application

The Supreme Court found that the trial court could reasonably infer endangerment from the totality of Father’s circumstances: long‑standing and escalating criminal behavior culminating in recent convictions involving violence and drugs; repeated incarcerations that produced instability and uncertainty in the child’s caregiving environment; limited parent‑child relationship and knowledge; inconsistent testimony on Father’s perceptions of Mother’s parenting; and the GAL and caseworker testimony highlighting the child’s exposure to neglect and instability. In narrating the law to the facts, the Court declined the court of appeals’ requirement of a direct causal link between criminal convictions and the specific endangerment alleged. Instead, applying R.R.A. and J.F.-G., the Court treated Father’s criminal history and pattern of incarceration as probative of a foreseeable risk to the child’s physical and emotional well‑being, sufficient to satisfy legal sufficiency under subsection (E).

Holding

The Supreme Court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) that Father engaged in conduct endangering N.L.S.’s physical or emotional well‑being. The Court reversed the court of appeals on that ground, explaining that its causal‑link requirement conflicted with controlling precedent. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals to address the questions the appellate court had not reached: whether the evidence is factually sufficient to support the endangerment finding and whether the trial court’s best‑interest finding is supported both legally and factually.

Practical Application

For petitioning litigators, this opinion reinforces that a coherent, cumulative narrative of risk — including criminal convictions that indicate violence or substance abuse, evidence of recurrent incarceration, and limited or inconsistent parental involvement — can satisfy legal sufficiency under § 161.001(b)(1)(E). Document and present the pattern, not just isolated incidents. For defense counsel, the decision underscores the uphill climb where a substantial record of criminality and instability exists; however, it also highlights preserved avenues on appeal: pressing factual‑sufficiency review, focusing on rehabilitation evidence, remediation steps, meaningful parent‑child contact, and undermining inference of current risk. On intake and trial strategy, counsel should anticipate the Court’s willingness to permit inferential reasoning from history to present risk and prepare to either buttress or dismantle that inference with contemporaneous evidence of stability, services, and bonding.

Checklists

Gather Your Evidence
– Collect certified copies of all criminal convictions and docket entries, with dates and offenses.
– Compile incarceration timelines correlated to periods of the child’s life and caregiving arrangements.
– Obtain caseworker notes, DFPS service plans, visitation logs, and any documented requests for contact (e.g., video visits).
– Secure testimony from caregivers, neighbors, teachers, and medical or school records demonstrating neglect, hunger, or instability.
– Preserve GAL reports and any recommendations.

Build the Endangerment Narrative
– Assemble a chronological narrative showing pattern and foreseeability of harm (incarceration → caregiving gaps → child exposure).
– Use expert or fact‑witness testimony to explain how parental criminality and instability translate into emotional or physical risk for a child.
– Emphasize psychological and developmental consequences of prolonged instability where available.

Anticipate and Counter Causation Challenges
– Prepare to rebut arguments that a conviction is irrelevant without direct proof of harm by linking patterns of behavior to foreseeable risk.
– Identify contemporaneous evidence that either undermines or supports the inference of present risk (e.g., ongoing substance use, lack of stable housing, no compliant case plan).
– For defense, marshal evidence of rehabilitation, program completion, stable post‑release plans, and substantial parent‑child interaction.

Prove Best Interest
– Correlate endangerment proof with statutory best‑interest factors: desires of the child, emotional/physical needs, parental ability to provide, stability, and any history of violence or substance abuse.
– Prepare testimony and exhibits that demonstrate caretaking capacity, support networks, and feasible reunification plans if appropriate.

Preserving Issues for Appeal
– Ensure trial objections, offers of proof, and rulings are properly preserved on evidence and standards.
– Create a robust clerk and reporter record for factual‑sufficiency review: include all testimony, exhibit admissions, and bench findings.
– Consider motions for directed verdict and post‑judgment motions that frame legal sufficiency issues for appellate review.

Citation

In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C., Children, No. 23‑0965, slip op. (Tex. June 13, 2025).

Full Opinion

[Full opinion (Supreme Court of Texas) — http://docs.texasappellate.com/scotx/op/23-0965/2025-06-13.pc.pdf]