Full Opinion

Opinion filed October 29, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-26-00135-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF R.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV2401004 OPINION The Texas Supreme Court recently reiterated that “[s]undering the ties between parent and child ‘can never be justified without the most solid and substantial reasons.’” In re J.Z.A., 738 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. 2026) (quoting Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex. 1976)). In the underlying case, the jury unanimously found that the mother and the father of R.N. 1 endangered R.N. and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2026). The jury also found that the 1 To protect the identities of the child and the child’s family members, we use pseudonyms or initials to refer to them when appropriate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to return R.N. to the parents, and despite those reasonable efforts, a continuing danger remained in the home that prevented the return of the child to them. See id. § 161.001(f). The trial court thereafter signed an order terminating each parent’s parental rights to R.N. Mother and Father filed this accelerated appeal in which they collectively present five issues. In their first and third issues, Mother and Father assert that evidence of Father’s juvenile sex offender status should have been excluded under Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence and that such evidence was improperly highlighted in the trial court’s charge. In their second issue, Mother and Father challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings that: (1) each parent endangered R.N. pursuant to Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E); (2) termination of each parent’s parental rights is in R.N.’s best interest; and (3) the Department made reasonable efforts to return R.N. to the parents and, despite those reasonable efforts, a continuing danger existed in the parents’ home that prevented the return of R.N. to them. See FAM. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2), (f). In their fourth issue, Mother and Father assert that the trial court’s judgment does not survive strict scrutiny. In their fifth issue, Mother and Father contend that the trial court failed to properly incorporate Sections 153.002 and 161.001(f) in its charge. See FAM. §§ 153.002, 161.001(f). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for a new trial. I. Termination Findings and Standards The Department must “clear[] a high bar” to justify terminating one’s parental rights. In re K.N., 741 S.W.3d 165, 178 (Tex. 2026); see also In re H.S., 741 S.W.3d 4, 8–9 (Tex. 2026) (re-emphasizing that terminating parental rights “‘is always the last resort’ . . . permissible to protect children from serious harm . . . [and] may be 2 exercised only in the absence of other legitimate options.” (quoting D.V. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 722 S.W.3d 854, 861 (Tex. 2025))). To support termination under this heightened standard, the Department must present clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the parent has committed one of the acts listed in Section 161.001(b)(1); and (2) termination is in the best interest of the child. See FAM. § 161.001(b). However, and despite affirmative findings to the above, a trial court may not order termination under Section 161.001(b) unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent before the trial on the merits commences and that, despite those reasonable efforts, a continuing danger remains in the parent’s home that prevents the child’s return to the parent. Id. § 161.001(f). Clear and convincing evidence is “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Id. § 101.007 (West 2019). This standard “is unforgiving” and “the government may not sever the legal ties between parents and children without clearing [this] high bar.” K.N., 741 S.W.3d at 178. In this case, the jury found that clear and convincing evidence established that: (1) Mother and Father knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical or emotional well- being of the child; (2) Mother and Father engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child, see FAM. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); and (3) termination of each parent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2). The jury additionally found that the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to return the child to the parents and, despite those reasonable efforts, a continuing danger remained in their home that prevented the return of the child to them. See id. § 161.001(f). 3 In reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge, we must decide whether “a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true.” In re J.W., 645 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. 2022). Cognizant of our deference to the factfinder, “we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so, and disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “However, we may not disregard ‘undisputed facts that do not support the finding.’” Id. (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)). Because “the factfinder remains ‘the sole arbiter of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanor’” under this standard, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Id. (quoting In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 312 (Tex. 2021)). When we assess whether the evidence is factually sufficient to support the finding, we weigh the disputed evidence that is contrary to the finding against all evidence that favors it. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). We give due deference to the finding, and determine whether, based on the entire record, a factfinder could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations asserted against the parent. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25–26 (Tex. 2002); In re L.C.C., 667 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023, pet. denied). II. General Background About the Case R.N. was born on October 24, 2023, to Mother and Father (the parents), both of whom were very young at the time. R.N. was their first child. R.N. was not gaining weight while in the parents’ care and was diagnosed on November 29, 2023, by her pediatrician with “feeding problems.” By December 11, 2023, R.N. continued to struggle with gaining weight, was diagnosed with “failure to thrive,” and was hospitalized. During R.N.’s hospitalization (from December 11 4 to December 16), the parents were given instructions on how to feed her. R.N. was subsequently released and sent home with the parents under a safety plan that required them to document R.N.’s feedings and have twenty-four-hour supervision to ensure R.N. was receiving the correct feeding volume and frequency. R.N. gained some weight initially but was again hospitalized on January 3, 2024, because of her weight status. This hospitalization lasted seven days. The parents sought a second opinion about her medical condition and testing from Cook Children’s Medical Center (Cook’s) when R.N.’s pediatrician refused the parents’ requests for R.N. to see a specialist. The parents took the child to Cook’s between the first and second hospitalizations. Cook’s treated R.N. for acid reflux and released her. During R.N.’s first hospitalization, the Department received an intake because of the child’s failure to thrive. The Department and the parents agreed to a safety plan that required the parents to maintain feeding logs and be supervised while R.N. was in their possession. The parents did not maintain accurate feeding logs, they violated the supervision requirement, and they refused to feed R.N. as instructed by medical staff. After learning that the parents had violated the safety plan, the Department reviewed the safety plan requirements and offered services through Family Based Safety Services (FBSS). 2 See FAM. §§ 262.402–.410, 264.203. The parents agreed to participate in FBSS. The Department also discussed options with the parents for entering a parent child safety placement plan (PCSP) and sending photographs of the bottles that were used for feeding to create a digital feeding log. See FAM. Chapter 264, Subchapter L, “Parental Child Safety Placements.” 2 “Family-based safety services are protective services provided to a family whose children are not in the conservatorship of the Department.” 40 TEX. ADMIN. CODE pt. 19 ch. 700 subch. G div. 2 § 710 (2021). The Department’s Child Protective Services Division provides family-based safety services to families and children “to: (1) protect the children from abuse and neglect; (2) help the family reduce the risk of future abuse or neglect; and (3) prevent the removal of the children from their home.” Id. 5 Within fifteen hours after R.N. was discharged from her second hospitalization, R.N. lost approximately an ounce in weight. The Department then obtained an order to remove the child and was appointed as the child’s temporary managing conservator. The adversary hearing was held on January 25, 2024, at which time the parents agreed to the Department’s requested relief, including temporary sole managing conservatorship. A comprehensive medical review was ordered at this hearing, but the order was silent as to whether the review included genetic testing. No genetic testing results existed at the time of the adversary hearing. After removal, R.N. was originally placed with her maternal grandmother, Miranda Harrington, and she gained weight while in Harrington’s care. After about three months with Harrington, the parents requested that R.N. be moved to Brownwood, which was closer to them, for visitation purposes. R.N. was then moved to Christopher and Joann Alva’s home in Brownwood, but two or three days after the child arrived there, the parents moved to San Antonio. A family plan of service was signed by the parents and adopted as an order of the trial court. Thereafter, the Department referred services for the family. On October 3, 2024, Father filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the temporary orders that the trial court made following a de novo permanency hearing, which we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In re R.N., No. 11-24-00265-CV, 2025 WL 863773, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 20, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). On April 11, 2025, the parties executed a Rule 11 Agreement that contained a plan for the parents to transition into a monitored return. The transition plan was delayed because of an intake for the alleged sexual abuse of R.N. by Father, which the Department ultimately ruled out. On July 30, 2025, R.N. was placed on a monitored return with the parents in San Antonio. 6 At the beginning of the monitored return, the Department visited the parents’ home and found it to be clean. During subsequent visits, however, the Department developed safety and cleanliness concerns for the parents’ home. Because of conditions of the parents’ home, the Department initiated an investigation into the alleged physical neglect of R.N. A week later, R.N. was removed from the monitored return, pursuant to a writ of attachment, and placed back in the Alvas’ home in Brownwood, where she remained throughout the trial. The monitored return lasted seventy-two days. The parents thereafter filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, which we denied because of the existence of hybrid representation. In re N.N., No. 11-25-00314-CV, 2025 WL 3480723, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Dec. 4, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). A jury trial was demanded on November 13, 2024, and an extension was granted on December 9, 2024, at Father’s request. The Department articulated the extraordinary circumstances that existed at that time, including that the parents were not working services, following recommendations, nor showing behavioral changes. Other events that contributed to the necessity for the extension were a change in the judge who was assigned to preside over the case, the timing of Father’s request for a jury trial, and the substitution of Mother’s trial attorney because of a conflict that developed during the case. The jury trial commenced on March 23, 2026, and concluded on March 27, 2026. At the time of trial, R.N. was approximately two years and five months old. Fourteen witnesses testified during the trial, including three Department investigators (Jeremiah Wenzel, Chrisstena Nelson, and Johnny Longoria), the most recent 2INgage caseworker (Amanda Poole), a San Antonio courtesy worker from the Department (Faith Parchem), both parents, one of Father’s prior attorney’s (Emily Miller), R.N.’s maternal grandmother (Miranda Harrington), R.N.’s maternal aunt (Trinity Tilley), R.N.’s primary pediatrician (Dr. Scott Morris), R.N.’s pediatric 7 geneticist (Dr. Claudia Soler-Alfonso), a child abuse pediatrician (Dr. Marcus DeGraw), and R.N.’s current placement (Joann Alva). A portion of the transcript from a de novo permanency hearing held on September 30, 2024, which contained testimony of both parents and another Department caseworker, Diane Hackney, was also read to the jury. III. The Evidence Presented at Trial Because an abundance of evidence, witness testimony, and documentary evidence was presented during the trial of this case, and because of our disposition of this appeal, we believe it is necessary to discuss in detail the evidence that is pertinent to the issues we address below. A. Jeremiah Wenzel Jeremiah Wenzel was the Department investigator who was assigned during R.N.’s first hospitalization to investigate the allegation of R.N.’s failure to thrive. This intake did not include concerns about the parents’ home. On December 13, Jamie Rickafort, a nurse, told Wenzel that the parents were focused during their conversations with R.N.’s treating physician (Dr. Hull) but did not appear to be comprehending the information provided to them by the medical staff. Brandi Pemberton, a social worker at Hendrick Hospital in Brownwood, also reported that day to Wenzel that the parents were not understanding the necessary parenting skills. During R.N.’s hospitalization, there was continued concern for the parents co- sleeping despite being provided with co-sleeping written material and verbal instructions on multiple occasions. On December 26 and 27, 2023, Wenzel was told by Dr. Hull that he had no concerns about R.N. not gaining weight. On January 3, 2024, Wenzel arrived at the parents’ home around 9:30 a.m. and observed the parents in possession of R.N. without a safety monitor. The parents reported that one safety monitor, Howard Johnson, left for work between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and the other monitor, Jacob Johnson, was asleep. The parents had 8 been alone with R.N. for approximately two to four hours. The Department did not seek to remove the child after this violation of the safety plan. Instead, Wenzel reviewed the safety plan with the parents again and agreed to continue with FBSS. Notably, Wenzel found in his initial investigation that there was reason to believe that R.N.’s failure to thrive was related to the parents’ inability to care for and feed her. After removal, the parents proposed that R.N. be placed with Harrington. Wenzel testified that the Department discussed with the parents that Harrington’s home “was a long distance” from Brownwood and requested other placement options that were geographically closer. Wenzel recalled that the parents were concerned that R.N.’s physicians were not “doing anything” that improved the child’s condition. Wenzel agreed that the parents acted appropriately by seeking medical treatment for R.N. B. Chrisstena Nelson Chrisstena Nelson was temporarily assigned as an investigator while Wenzel was on vacation. Nelson visited the parents at the hospital on January 5 and 8 during R.N.’s second hospitalization. Mother’s explanations to Nelson regarding R.N.’s missed feedings did not coincide with the feeding logs. When questioned by Nelson, Mother admitted that she was randomly filling in the feeding times and amounts. Mother also admitted that she and Father were not following the safety plan requirement of 24/7 supervision. Nelson discussed various options with the parents such as entering a PCSP and sending photographs of the bottles that were used for feeding to create a digital feeding log. The parents said they had no options for the PCSP; they agreed to the digital feeding log but then never implemented it. According to Nelsen, the parents also violated the safety plan by arriving at the hospital unsupervised with R.N. 9 When R.N. was discharged from her second hospitalization, she left with the parents, even though the Department was aware that the parents were not complying with the safety plan. Nelson understood that the event that caused the Department to seek removal was because R.N. lost an ounce of weight within approximately fifteen hours of being discharged from her second hospitalization. C. Dr. Scott Morris Dr. Scott Morris was R.N.’s pediatrician from R.N.’s birth through trial, excepting the time that R.N. was in San Antonio during the monitored return to the parents. At birth, R.N. appeared healthy; however, Dr. Morris acknowledged that R.N. had a genetic problem that was not identifiable on the newborn exam. R.N. weighed eight pounds at birth. Dr. Morris testified that on November 29, R.N. weighed eight pounds and fourteen ounces. R.N. was under the care of her parents during this time. On that date, Dr. Morris diagnosed R.N. with feeding problems. Dr. Morris saw R.N. again on December 11, and she weighed eight pounds and fifteen ounces. Dr. Morris expected typical weight gain to be about an ounce or thirty grams each day. Dr. Morris diagnosed R.N. with failure to thrive, and R.N. was thereafter hospitalized for five days. R.N.’s weight improved from eight pounds and fifteen ounces to nine pounds and six ounces during this hospitalization. According to Dr. Morris, R.N.’s feedings were conducted by nurses, the parents with nurse supervision, and the parents while documenting the feedings. Dr. Morris testified that the parents did well with the feedings during this hospitalization. When R.N. was discharged with the parents, Dr. Morris requested a safety plan that required the parents to document R.N.’s feedings and supervision to ensure that R.N. was receiving the prescribed feeding volume at the correct frequency. R.N. weighed nine pounds and five ounces on December 16 when she was released from the hospital to the parents. 10 While in the care of the parents after the first hospitalization, Dr. Morris reported that R.N. initially gained some weight but was ultimately required to be hospitalized a second time on January 3, 2024. R.N.’s weight between the first and the second hospitalizations only increased one ounce. Dr. Morris characterized the child’s weight gain on December 19 as great but stated that R.N.’s weight gain between hospitalizations was not appropriate, that R.N. was endangered by being at home with the parents, and that R.N. was again in a life-threatening situation. Dr. Morris reported that, during R.N.’s hospitalizations, R.N. gained weight and grew appropriately, but not while she was under the care of her parents. When asked if the problem was social versus genetic, Dr. Morris indicated it was multi- factorial, but a significant factor was a social one. Dr. Morris had “grave concern[s]” about the social problems before R.N. was removed because R.N. was able to gain weight while feedings were supervised. Although he could assign “concern,” Dr. Morris could not assign percentages as to whether R.N.’s condition was because of her genetic variation, social factors, cardiac concerns, or the care provided by her caregivers. On or about July 30, 2025, R.N. was placed on a monitored return with the parents in San Antonio. R.N. returned to see Dr. Morris with the Alvas on October 11, 2025; she weighed twenty pounds. Two days later, R.N. weighed twenty-one pounds and two ounces. Dr. Morris concluded that R.N. did not gain significant weight during the monitored return but did as soon as she returned to the Alvas. Dr. Morris characterized the weight that R.N. gained between the October 11 and 13 visits as substantial. He “wondered if the child was hungry,” and further indicated that he could “only imagine” that the child’s gain in weight was from either consuming a lot of food and water or not having previously been given much food or water. 11 Dr. Morris acknowledged that R.N.’s weight at times vacillated with illness and, at least one decline, was because R.N. was weighed while clothed instead of being naked. For example, on June 23, 2025, R.N. weighed nineteen pounds two ounces but a few days later, while having a fever, R.N. weighed eighteen pounds six ounces. Dr. Morris admitted that the child lost and gained weight while in the care of the Department, the parents, and the Alvas. Dr. Morris also testified that some of R.N.’s weight loss while the child was not in the parents’ care were because of illness. Dr. Morris described R.N. as difficult to feed at times. Dr. Morris instructed the parents during R.N.’s hospitalization about how to properly feed her, and to maintain feeding logs before the second admission. Although the parents followed feeding instructions during R.N.’s hospitalizations, Dr. Morris testified that by the second hospitalization the parents were not meeting the child’s needs, the child was in danger, the parents were not able to keep the child healthy, the child’s nutritional goals were not being met during a critical time period for nutrition, and efforts had been made to help the parents correct the situation. Dr. Morris could not discern whether the parents completely comprehended the instructions that he gave them or if the parents were simply unwilling to follow them. If the parents had followed the instructions, Dr. Morris stated that R.N. would not have been hospitalized the second time. However, Dr. Morris admitted that he had no evidence that the parents were not following his feeding instructions during the times that R.N. lost weight while in their care and acknowledged that the parents showed concern for R.N. by taking her to his clinic. Dr. Morris described R.N. as thriving as of the date of trial. D. Dr. Claudia Soler-Alfonso Dr. Claudia Soler-Alfonso is a pediatrician and medical geneticist at Cook’s. Dr. Soler-Alfonso had only one video appointment with R.N. The purpose of the appointment was to provide a second opinion regarding R.N.’s genetic testing that 12 was performed by a prior geneticist sometime in June 2025. Dr. Soler-Alfonoso never spoke to the parents. According to Dr. Soler-Alfonso, the genetic testing clearly explained R.N.’s developmental delays but did not provide much insight as to her growth delays. R.N. has a very serious genetic issue that affects how the brain develops, specifically for movement and development. A child with developmental differences is referred to as a child with neurodevelopmental conditions; those children often have feeding issues, such as with swallowing and getting or demonstrating hunger cues. If feeding difficulties from neurodevelopmental conditions are sustained over time, it can result in a diagnosis of failure to thrive. As for R.N., Dr. Soler-Alfonso stated that additional evaluations were necessary to determine whether R.N.’s genetic conditions were affecting her ability to feed and grow. Those evaluations included physical, occupational, speech, and feeding therapies. Dr. Soler-Alfonso noted in her records the reasons for R.N.’s developmental delays and failure to thrive, and nothing in Dr. Soler-Alfonso’s report suggested that the parents actions or inactions could have caused the child’s genetic variations. E. Dr. Marcus DeGraw Dr. Marcus DeGraw testified on behalf of the parents. Dr. DeGraw was tendered as an expert in the fields of general child pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics. Dr. DeGraw only reviewed R.N.’s medical records; he did not physically examine R.N. Nor did Dr. DeGraw speak with Dr. Morris, Dr. Hull, Dr. Soler- Alfonso, the nurses at the hospital, or the parents. However, Dr. DeGraw testified that physically examining R.N., or speaking with the pediatricians or the parents would not change his opinions. Dr. DeGraw disagreed with Dr. Morris’s opinion that the child’s failure to gain weight was largely a result of the parents’ ability to feed the child rather than 13 the child’s genetic problem. Dr. DeGraw opined that any doctor’s concern during R.N.’s early infancy was appropriate but a neglect theory at the time of trial “bl[e]w [his] mind.” Although the approach by R.N.’s doctors to hospitalize her was appropriate, Dr. DeGraw disagreed that illness, unless significant, would cause weight loss for a child and he did not believe it was an appropriate suggestion that R.N. only struggled when ill. In Dr. DeGraw’s opinion, R.N.’s genetic condition was likely the primary reason for her early failure to thrive and persistent difficulty with growth. Dr. DeGraw testified that, despite a complete change in parenting, venue, and care, the child continued to struggle with growth and gaining weight. Dr. DeGraw stated that there was nothing in the files that he reviewed that caused him concern that the parents abused or neglected R.N. F. Trinity Tilley Trinity Tilley is Mother’s sister; she was twenty at the time of trial. Tilley lived in Brownwood when R.N. was born. Tilley testified that initially the parents and R.N. lived in an apartment but were evicted a couple of weeks after R.N. was born. Following the eviction, the parents and R.N. moved into Howard’s home, who Mother referred to as both her “dad” and “stepdad.” Tilley, her child, and an uncle also resided in Howard’s home. The parents and R.N. began residing at Howard’s home before R.N.’s first hospitalization and remained there until two weeks after R.N.’s second hospitalization. Tilley stated that when the parents stopped living with Howard, they moved in with Father’s foster sister and her fiancé. The fiancé was confined in the Brown County jail at the time of trial for charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, assault family violence by occlusion, and injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01(b)(2), 22.02(a)(2) (West 2026), § 22.04 (West Supp. 2026). Approximately one to two weeks later, the parents moved to San Antonio. 14 During the time that Tilley resided with the parents and R.N. she recalled the parents telling her about the safety plan with the Department and discussing the hospital’s feeding instructions. Tilley also saw the hospital’s written feeding instructions and the feeding log. Tilley observed that the parents did not feed R.N. as instructed by the hospital staff and did not fill out the feeding log every time after a feeding. She believed the parents cared more about “video games and themselves” than feeding R.N. However, Tilley did state that the parents complied with the safety plan’s 24/7 supervision requirement. Tilley testified that the parents allowed R.N. to “cry and cry and cry,” which concerned her because the parents were not feeding R.N. every three hours as instructed. Tilley would bottle-feed R.N. when she was crying and did not observe any issue with R.N. choking or struggling to feed. When Tilley would point out to the parents that R.N. was hungry, Tilley testified that Father would become defensive and make remarks such as “back off”; ask her to leave him or R.N. alone; tell her that “that is his daughter” and “he will do what he wants”; and state that R.N. was “fine,” or that “[crying was] good for her lungs.” Tilley testified that Mother’s behavior had changed since she met Father. Before they met, Mother was happy, talkative, and laughed often. But now Mother was “closed off,” had separated herself from everyone in the family, and did not talk to them unless Father was with her. Tilley believed that Mother could not successfully parent R.N. around Father but could if she was not with him. G. Miranda Harrington When R.N. was placed with Harrington, they lived in Donna, which is in South Texas. Harrington testified that she arranged for R.N. to be treated by a pediatrician, took R.N. to a specialist, obtained a referral for a geneticist, monitored feedings, logged the times and amount that R.N. was fed, and followed the physician’s instructions regarding the specific formulas to feed R.N. 15 After about three months with Harrington, the parents decided that R.N. should be closer to Brownwood, which, at the time, was closer to them for visitation purposes. Harrington recommended, and R.N. was moved to the Alvas’ home in Brownwood. Two or three days after the child arrived there, however, Harrington reported that the parents moved to San Antonio. The move requested by the parents occurred before R.N.’s appointment with the geneticist. Harrington testified that she did not care for Father because of his “criminal background,” or for how Father manipulated and controlled Mother. Harrington described Father’s treatment of Mother as emotional abuse. Harrington testified that she was unaware of any evidence of physical abuse between the parents. Harrington’s perspective was that Mother cannot speak to Harrington without Father being present. H. Father As a child, Father was in foster care and lived in many placements. Following the termination of his parents’ parental rights, he was adopted. Father testified that he experienced mental, sexual, and physical abuse on multiple occasions while in foster care. Father is a registered sex offender and is required to register until June 2028. He was referred to juvenile proceedings when he was thirteen for conduct that occurred when he was twelve. Father testified that the charge was “rape” but described the underlying conduct as touching a then seven-year-old female relative while she was unclothed. As a juvenile, Father attended and completed the Pegasus sex offender treatment program. He testified that he has not reoffended and regrets his past conduct. Father testified that his brother, Z.N., was also physically abused while in foster care. Z.N. is also a registered sex offender. According to Father, Z.N. influenced him when Father sexually abused his younger female relative. At times, 16 Father and Mother allowed R.N. to have contact with both the paternal grandmother, who had a history with the Department, and Z.N. Father’s caseworker allowed him to decide whether this contact was appropriate, and Father believed that it was safe for his mother and Z.N. to be around R.N. Father admitted that R.N. was hospitalized because he did not feed her as instructed. At birth, Father denied that he was given documentation by hospital staff that instructed him how to care for R.N. but he recalled the hospital staff telling them to “stick the bottle in her mouth[,] squeeze the bottle[,] and then close her mouth and make her swallow it.” Father did not use this method because it could cause choking and was a safety risk for R.N. Father stated that the hospital staffs likewise did not give the parents any written instructions about how to care for R.N., except for “safety sleeping.” Father recalled asking Dr. Hull to refer R.N. to Cook’s during her first hospitalization but his request was denied. Father experienced similar weight gain issues when he was younger—he weighed ninety pounds from age thirteen to eighteen. Father testified that he completed a drug and alcohol test and a psychological evaluation for the Department. He also provided proof that he completed counseling. He denied that he controls Mother. During the monitored return, Father researched the availability of pediatricians who could treat R.N. and he took her to a gastroenterologist at Christus Children’s hospital. The parents were feeding R.N. a high protein diet and had tried using PediaSure and Duocal. Father testified that R.N. would eat almost anything, but she is no longer fed with a bottle and is not in any danger with them. Despite the allegation, he denied ever showering with R.N. Father described R.N. as a “bag of giggles” that is happy to see him during visitations, and she becomes upset when the visits end. 17 I. Amanda Poole Amanda Poole was the third caseworker assigned by the Department to R.N.’s case. The Department created one family plan of service in February 2024 that contained all the services for both parents. The service plan required the parents, among other things, to: (1) learn how to feed R.N.; (2) give R.N. what she needed to grow and develop properly; (3) maintain safe and stable housing; (4) allow announced and unannounced home visits and photographs to be taken during these visits; (5) maintain employment; (6) complete a parenting program and demonstrate the skills that they learned from that parenting program; (7) attend visitation; (8) document R.N.’s feedings during visitations; and (9) complete a mental health assessment, complete a psychological evaluation, participate in counseling, and follow all recommendations. The service plan also stated that counseling was to address “taking responsibility for [the parents’] actions that led to the removal of [R.N.], depression/anxiety, and any other needs that may arise.” The only service specific to Father was that he “comply[] with the terms of his sex offender registry” and avoid engaging in any criminal activity. The service plan informed the parents that so long as they were in a relationship, their progress would be evaluated together; however, if their relationship ended, they would be evaluated independently. The parents attended counseling with more than one therapist. After the monitored return ended, the parents selected their counselors and presented reports from these counselors that the parents had completed their sessions and were discharged. However, the Department would not accept these reports as proof that the parents had completed counseling because Poole did not “feel like they can make a determination on if [the parents] met all their goals in four sessions” and the goals identified by the counselors did not include “therapy for them to deal with the reason the child came 18 into care [and] parenting services to help them know how to better parent their child.” Poole testified that Father’s status as a sex offender is a “big thing,” however, she admitted that she did not refer Father for any services that were related to his sexual offense, no one asked the trial court for him to complete sex offender counseling, and that she would have referred a relevant service for him if she believed it was necessary. She observed no signs that Father had reoffended. The only exception was an intake for alleged sexual abuse that was ruled out. Poole stated that the Pegasus program Father completed was a good program that she had seen others do well in; however, she believed there is always a “concern” that a registered sex offender may reoffend. She testified that Father was not at a higher risk than the average person to offend or reoffend. Poole testified that Father had not violated the terms of his sex offender registry, and she did not oppose placing R.N. on the monitored return based on Father’s status as a registered sex offender. Poole recounted four home visits that were made by either herself, Parchem, or Longoria between September 3 and October 6. Poole reported the following “safety problems” that were observed during these home visits: (1) roaches crawling on the floor; (2) tools left in the open; (3) a small crowbar on the stairs; (4) a cigarette butt on the stairs; (5) no security gates to block the stairway and prevent R.N.’s access; and (6) a mop bucket full of milky white water with dead roaches floating in it. The mop bucket concerned Poole because R.N. could drown if she fell in it, but she later admitted that R.N. was not harmed by the mop bucket’s presence. The tools that were observed that caused concerns included a screwdriver, a small drill bit, and the crowbar. There were also “concerns” reported to Poole by Gypsy Poppawell, another courtesy worker, following other home visits. Poppawell did not have concerns with every home visit, however, when she did Poppawell would advise the parents to 19 clean their home and they complied. Although the parents cleaned their home at Poppawell’s request, she developed subsequent concerns about the home’s cleanliness. As to R.N.’s weight, Poole testified that the child continued to struggle with gaining weight but that she had “gained weight off and on throughout this case.” She expressed concern that the parents would starve R.N. Poole testified that R.N. weighed twenty-one pounds on March 4, 2026, and twenty-one pounds and two ounces when the monitored return ended on October 10, 2025. When Poole picked up R.N. on the day the monitored return ended, R.N. drank all the PediaSure she was given in a sippy cup and ate snacks. Poole stated that R.N. has some genetic issues, and that she only gained about eight ounces during the monitored return. The Department’s goal was termination of each parent’s parental rights and adoption by the Alvas. Poole admitted that adoption was “not necessary but that’s what we’re going for.” Poole believed that termination was in R.N.’s best in