In the Interest of H.J.L. a/k/a H.J.H., a Child

In the Interest of H.J.L. a/k/a H.J.H., a Child, 07-26-00156-CV, June 26, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law Number 1, Randall County, Texas

Synopsis

The Amarillo Court of Appeals held that repeated sexual abuse of a child by a parent is legally and factually sufficient to establish endangerment under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and therefore supports termination of parental rights. The same endangerment evidence, coupled with the child’s therapeutic needs, placement circumstances, and the ad litem’s recommendation, also supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under section 161.001(b)(2).

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends well beyond CPS litigation. For Texas family lawyers handling SAPCRs, modifications, conservatorship disputes, possession restrictions, protective-order matters, and even divorce cases involving children, In re H.J.L. reinforces that sexual abuse evidence is not merely “bad conduct” evidence—it is direct endangerment evidence that can drive outcomes on managing conservatorship, supervised access, no-contact provisions, and best-interest determinations. It also underscores a recurrent appellate theme: where the record shows a sustained course of abusive conduct and resulting trauma to the child, appellate courts are unlikely to disturb trial-court findings framed around endangerment and best interest.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case arose from a teenage child’s outcry to police that his father had been sexually abusing him since the child was approximately eleven years old. According to the responding officer’s testimony, the child described repeated abuse over several years, including being required to sleep in the father’s bed, performing oral sex on the father, and being subjected to anal sex by the father. The child was reportedly embarrassed and emotional during the disclosure.

A detective arranged a forensic interview and investigated the allegations. The father denied the accusations and did not cooperate with the investigation. Criminal charges were reportedly pursued for continuous sexual abuse of a child under fourteen and for abandoning and endangering a child, although the appellate record did not reflect the resolution of those charges.

The Department explored alternative placements but ruled out available family and friend options. The child’s mother had previously relinquished her parental rights. The grandmother was excluded because of concerns that she knew of the abuse and failed to intervene. Another possible placement was unsuitable due to unstable housing. The child was initially placed in a group home and later with foster parents who had cared for him during prior proceedings involving the mother.

The Department also presented evidence that the father impeded reunification efforts. While incarcerated briefly, he refused to meet with the caseworker about a service plan. After release, he posted a no-trespassing sign at his home, and the Department ceased in-person efforts there. Phone contact attempts were unsuccessful.

A therapist testified that the abuse began under the guise of a “birthday present” sleepover with the father and escalated over time from touching and masturbation to penetration. The therapist further testified that the child reported physical pain, coercion, and threats involving the loss of privileges if he resisted. The child was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, self-harming behavior, and had attempted suicide. By the time of trial, he was making progress in therapy and stated that he wanted no contact with either the father or grandmother.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N).
• Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2).
• More specifically, whether repeated sexual abuse of the child by the father constituted a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical or emotional well-being under subsection (E).
• Whether the same evidence of abuse and trauma, together with placement evidence and the ad litem’s recommendation, was sufficient to support best interest under the Holley framework.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar two-pronged termination framework under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b): the Department had to prove at least one predicate ground under subsection (b)(1) and separately prove best interest under subsection (b)(2), all by clear and convincing evidence.

Key authorities included:

• Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), addressing knowingly placing or allowing the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E), addressing a parent’s conduct, or knowingly placing the child with persons who engaged in conduct, that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being.
• Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2), requiring proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.
• Texas Family Code section 101.007 and section 161.206(a), defining and requiring the clear-and-convincing standard.
• Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), setting out nonexclusive factors relevant to best interest.
• In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) and In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), governing legal and factual sufficiency review in termination cases.
• In re M.M., 584 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, pet. denied), recognizing that subsection (E) requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct rather than a single act or omission.
• In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), describing subsection (E)’s focus on whether endangerment results directly from the parent’s conduct.

The appellate court also reiterated the broader constitutional framework: termination proceedings are strictly scrutinized, but parental rights are not absolute and may yield when the child’s physical and emotional welfare is endangered.

Application

The court’s analysis centered on subsection (E), because one predicate ground was enough to affirm termination. That framing matters strategically. Rather than parsing every pleaded predicate ground, the court selected the ground most directly matched to the evidentiary record: a sustained course of sexually abusive conduct by the father toward the child.

The evidence showed repeated abuse over a period of at least three years, not an isolated incident. That chronology allowed the court to fit the facts neatly into the subsection (E) requirement of a voluntary, deliberate, and continuing course of conduct. The therapist’s testimony strengthened the Department’s case significantly. It did more than corroborate the child’s outcry. It explained the grooming dynamic, the escalating nature of the abuse, the coercive threats, and the direct physical and psychological consequences. In appellate terms, that is the kind of record that converts allegations into clear-and-convincing proof of endangerment.

The court also relied on the child’s diagnosed PTSD, depression, self-harm, and suicide attempt as evidence that the father’s conduct endangered both physical and emotional well-being. This is important because subsection (E) does not require only physical injury; emotional destruction caused by a parent’s repeated abuse is squarely within the statute’s reach.

On best interest, the court treated the endangerment evidence as doing most of the work. That is typical in severe abuse cases. Once the record established repeated sexual abuse and resulting trauma, the best-interest analysis became comparatively straightforward. The child’s desire for no contact with the father, his treatment needs, the absence of a safe family placement, his improving condition in care, and the ad litem’s recommendation all supported the conclusion that termination—not a lesser protective arrangement—served the child’s welfare. In other words, the same facts that proved endangerment also made the best-interest finding highly defensible on appeal.

Holding

The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E). Repeated sexual abuse of the child over a multi-year period constituted a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s physical and emotional well-being. Because one predicate ground was sufficient to support termination, the court did not need to analyze the remaining predicate grounds to affirm.

The court also held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The father’s sexual abuse of the child, the severe trauma and mental-health consequences that followed, the child’s stated desire for no contact, the child’s need for stable and protective placement, and the ad litem’s recommendation collectively supported a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, In re H.J.L. is a reminder that endangerment concepts developed in termination litigation often migrate into other child-related proceedings. In a divorce or SAPCR case, if credible evidence shows sexual abuse, grooming, coercive sleeping arrangements, threats tied to silence or compliance, or trauma-linked behavioral consequences, counsel should be thinking not only in terms of immediate protection but also in terms of building an appellate-grade endangerment record. That means preserving testimony from first outcry witnesses, forensic interview pathways, treating therapists, placement witnesses, and any evidence of non-protective family members.

The case is also useful when seeking temporary orders that sharply restrict a parent’s access. Lawyers sometimes encounter judicial hesitation where there is no completed criminal case or no conviction. In re H.J.L. underscores that termination-level findings may rest on clear-and-convincing civil evidence independent of a criminal adjudication. In conservatorship and modification litigation, that same principle supports supervised possession, denial of overnight possession, no-contact relief, or sole managing conservatorship when the record demonstrates danger to the child’s physical or emotional welfare.

For lawyers defending against abuse-based claims, the case illustrates the danger of procedural noncooperation. Refusing Department contact, blocking service-plan communication, and failing to engage the record leave the trial court with unrebutted evidence of abuse, non-protectiveness, and lack of parental capacity. Even outside CPS, a parent who ignores evaluations, discovery, interviews, or court-ordered services can inadvertently help the opposing side establish best interest and endangerment themes that are difficult to unwind on appeal.

Property and divorce litigators should not overlook the indirect implications either. Cases involving abuse allegations often shape exclusive-use orders, geographic restrictions, injunctions, temporary support structures, and litigation posture around settlement. A well-developed child-endangerment record can affect the entire architecture of the family case, even where the formal issue before the court is conservatorship rather than termination.

Checklists

Building an Endangerment Record

• Obtain and preserve the child’s outcry chronology with dates, approximate ages, and frequency of incidents.
• Identify the first outcry witness and secure detailed testimony about demeanor, spontaneity, and specificity.
• Develop evidence showing a continuing course of conduct rather than an isolated event.
• Gather therapist, counselor, or psychiatric testimony connecting the conduct to trauma symptoms.
• Document coercion, grooming behavior, threats, secrecy, or manipulation by the offending parent.
• Establish both physical and emotional endangerment where possible.
• Preserve evidence of the child’s expressed fear, refusal of contact, or stated wishes.

Proving Best Interest in Abuse Cases

• Tie the abusive conduct directly to the child’s present and future emotional and physical needs.
• Present evidence of diagnosis, treatment plan, and progress in a safe placement.
• Show why the proposed protective arrangement is stable, structured, and sustainable.
• Address the child’s desires where age-appropriate and admissible.
• Use the ad litem or amicus recommendation effectively and anchor it in record evidence.
• Explain why lesser restrictions would not adequately protect the child.
• Frame the case under the Holley factors even if the abuse evidence is overwhelming.

Placement and Protective-Family Analysis

• Vet relatives carefully for knowledge of the abuse, minimization, or failure to intervene.
• Develop a record explaining why a proposed kinship placement is unsafe or unsuitable.
• Show how the current placement is meeting the child’s therapeutic and educational needs.
• Document instability issues such as transient housing, noncompliance, or unsafe household members.
• Anticipate appellate scrutiny by making the placement rationale explicit in the trial record.

Defending a Parent Accused of Endangering Conduct

• Engage immediately with the investigation and court process; noncooperation is strategically damaging.
• Do not rely on blanket denials without affirmative rebuttal evidence.
• Consider prompt psychological, psychosexual, or therapeutic evaluation where appropriate.
• Challenge reliability issues carefully, but without ignoring the emotional and clinical evidence.
• Present evidence of compliance, treatment, protective capacity, and a concrete safety structure.
• Avoid conduct that suggests evasiveness, obstruction, or indifference to the child’s welfare.
• Build a record on less-restrictive alternatives if termination or severe access restrictions are contested.

Preserving the Case for Appeal

• Make sure all predicate-ground challenges are clearly raised, even if one ground will likely control.
• Preserve objections to hearsay, expert testimony, and documentary exhibits with specificity.
• Request findings and ensure the final order accurately identifies the statutory grounds.
• Develop a full best-interest record; do not assume the predicate ground alone will carry the case.
• Confirm that the reporter’s record captures all oral rulings, recommendations, and proffers.
• Brief both legal and factual sufficiency with the clear-and-convincing standard in mind.

Citation

In the Interest of H.J.L. a/k/a H.J.H., a Child, No. 07-26-00156-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 26, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c329e6f5-4db0-4e36-921e-18fdb72c9674~~