Child Care License Defense Attorney in Frisco, TX

A Texas child-care license lives or dies under Human Resources Code chapter 42: HHSC can impose corrective action, deny, suspend, or revoke a permit, and an abuse or neglect finding can land you in the DFPS central registry. From our Frisco office, L and L Law Group defends providers across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties.

Peer Recognition

Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors

Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.

Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Who Controls a Texas Child-Care License — and Under What Law?

Every licensed center, licensed or registered child-care home, and listed family home in Texas operates under Human Resources Code chapter 42 and the minimum standards the Health and Human Services Commission adopts under it — 26 Texas Administrative Code chapter 745 for licensing procedure, chapter 746 for centers, and chapter 747 for homes. HHSC Child Care Regulation inspects operations, cites deficiencies, and decides enforcement. A separate agency, the Department of Family and Protective Services, investigates allegations that a child was abused or neglected inside an operation.

That dual-agency structure is the first thing Frisco providers misread. An abuse or neglect investigation and a minimum-standards investigation are two different files with two different endpoints: one can put a person in the DFPS central registry, the other can put conditions on — or end — the permit itself. A provider who answers a DFPS investigator's questions thinking the worst outcome is a corrected deficiency has badly underestimated the table stakes, because findings flow between the files, and either file can be referred to law enforcement.

The lawyers at L and L Law Group defend the license, the registry finding, and any criminal referral as one coordinated case. The firm has one office — 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101 in Frisco — and from it represents providers, directors, and individual caregivers across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties, with SOAH proceedings handled wherever the administrative law judge sits.

What Triggers an HHSC or DFPS Investigation in Frisco?

Most cases start one of five ways. A parent complaint — ratio, supervision, an unexplained bruise — goes to the statewide intake line and is routed to HHSC, DFPS, or both. A routine unannounced inspection turns up a deficiency that the inspector escalates. A self-report obligates the operation: minimum standards require providers to report certain injuries and incidents, and § 42.078(e-1) attaches a $500 administrative penalty to failing to report qualifying injuries on time — a report-or-be-penalized structure that effectively makes the operation the State's first witness. A hospital or physician treating an injured child makes a mandatory abuse report under Family Code chapter 261, which professionals must make within 48 hours. Or a former employee reports conditions after a termination dispute.

Two features of intake matter for defense. Complaints can be anonymous, and neither agency needs probable cause to open an investigation — the screening standard is administrative, not criminal. Early counsel matters precisely because the investigation phase is where interviews, written statements, and camera footage get locked in, long before anyone tells you whether the file is heading toward a corrective-action offer or a felony referral.

Corrective Action vs. Adverse Action: The Ch. 42 Enforcement Ladder

Chapter 42 enforcement is a ladder, and the rung HHSC chooses is negotiable far more often than providers assume. At the bottom sits technical assistance and citation-level enforcement of minimum standards. The middle is corrective action — evaluation or probation periods with added conditions, training requirements, and tighter monitoring — under which the operation keeps running. The top is adverse action under § 42.072: denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew the license, listing, registration, or certification. Parallel to the ladder, § 42.078 authorizes administrative penalties, and § 42.073 authorizes the emergency rung — immediate suspension and closure when a violation creates an immediate threat to the health and safety of children, effective on receipt of written notice and valid for 30 days.

Three details in that table do real work. The per-day stacking rule means a single uncorrected condition can compound into a five-figure penalty exposure, which is leverage the agency holds in settlement talks. The clerical-error carve-out in § 42.078 is a genuine defense to penalty assessments built on paperwork mistakes rather than care failures. And the § 42.072(c) bar runs from revocation, final denial, or closure — so walking away from a contested permit can cost the same five years as losing the hearing, which is why surrender decisions should never be made in the heat of an exit conference.

Which Criminal Charges Grow Out of Child-Care Cases?

Licensing files turn criminal along two routes. The first is operational: running without the required permit. The second is incident-driven: a child is injured, and the abuse or neglect investigation doubles as the front end of a police referral. The table below shows the offenses we see most in DFW child-care practice.

Note what is not on the chart: there is no general “daycare negligence” crime. Prosecutors reach for § 22.04 because it covers omissions as well as acts, and because “child” means a person 14 or younger — which captures nearly every daycare population. The grade turns almost entirely on mental state, and that is where these cases are won.

What the State and HHSC Must Each Prove

The two tracks carry different burdens, and conflating them is a common — and costly — mistake.

Adverse licensing action (§ 42.072 — administrative)

HHSC must show the operation failed to comply with chapter 42, commission standards and rules, or the specific terms of its permit. The dispute is heard as a contested case at the State Office of Administrative Hearings under Government Code chapter 2001, and a reviewing court later asks only whether substantial evidence supports the decision — a low bar that makes the SOAH hearing itself the main event.

Injury to a child by omission (§ 22.04 — criminal)

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the victim was a child 14 or younger; (2) the defendant acted — or failed to act; (3) with intent, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence; (4) causing serious bodily injury, serious mental injury, or bodily injury. For omissions, § 22.04(b) adds a duty element that is phrased in the disjunctive — a legal or statutory duty to act, or assumption of care, custody, or control — as the First Court of Appeals confirmed in Sada v. State, 574 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019).

“Assumed care, custody, or control” (§ 22.04(d))

An actor assumes care, custody, or control by acting — through act, words, or course of conduct — so that a reasonable person would conclude the actor accepted responsibility for the child's protection, food, shelter, and medical care. For a caregiver on shift in a licensed room, this prong is close to automatic; the contested ground in daycare prosecutions is almost never duty, but mental state and medical causation.

What Defenses Work Against Licensing Actions and Injury-to-a-Child Charges?

On the administrative side, the deepest mistake is treating the SOAH hearing as a formality. It is the one stage where HHSC's proof gets tested under the rules of evidence before an independent administrative law judge — and the Texas Supreme Court has confirmed the safety net behind it: a child-care facility whose license is revoked under chapter 42 is entitled to judicial review of the administrative decision, because Government Code § 2001.171 supplies an independent right to review where the enabling statute neither grants nor clearly precludes it. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004).^[6] Defense work at this level includes attacking the factual basis of cited deficiencies, showing standards were misapplied or the violation was a clerical error (a complete answer to § 42.078 penalties), negotiating the file down the ladder from adverse action to corrective action, and pursuing a risk evaluation under 26 TAC chapter 745 when the problem is a background-check hit rather than the operation's conduct.

On the criminal side, the battle lines track the elements. Mental state first: criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care, so an injury that happened despite ratio compliance, posted policies, and prompt response is an accident — a tort question at most, not a crime. Causation second: pediatric injuries are dated and explained through medical evidence, and defense experts on lucid intervals, short-fall mechanics, and pre-existing conditions routinely undercut the State's timeline tying the injury to the defendant's shift. Duty third: under Sada, § 22.04(b) reaches a caregiver only through a statutory duty or assumed care, custody, or control — which matters for owners and directors charged for a floor employee's conduct, because mere ownership is not assumption of care of a particular child at a particular moment.^[7] Identity and attribution issues round it out in multi-caregiver rooms: the State must put the act or omission on the defendant, not on the room.

The coordination point is timing. Statements given freely in the licensing file are discoverable in the criminal case, and plea decisions made to end the criminal case quickly can hand HHSC and the registry everything they need. Whichever track moves first, the defense has to be built for both.

What Happens After an Investigator Contacts a Frisco Provider?

The pattern is consistent across Collin County operations. An investigator arrives unannounced — sometimes HHSC, sometimes DFPS, sometimes both on the same day. They tour the operation, pull records, and ask to interview the director and the staff connected to the allegation. At the end comes an exit conference where preliminary observations are shared. Written findings follow: cited deficiencies post to the operation's public compliance history on HHSC's child-care search site — where Frisco parents read them — and an abuse or neglect disposition letter states whether DFPS sustained the allegation.

From there the clocks start. A provider can seek administrative review of investigation findings, then a SOAH contested case on adverse action or a sustained registry finding; lose at SOAH and the remaining move is judicial review on a substantial-evidence record. The deadlines are letter-driven and short — the date on the notice controls, and missing it usually forfeits the challenge. In parallel, if the incident involved an injury, Frisco police or the Collin County Sheriff's Office may open a criminal file: child interviews happen at a children's advocacy center, medical records are subpoenaed, and the case is presented to the district attorney for a charging decision — grand jury indictment for felonies, information for misdemeanors. Nothing about the licensing timeline waits for the criminal timeline, which is exactly why one team should be managing both.

Where Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County Cases Are Heard

The administrative case does not sit in a county courthouse at all: SOAH contested cases are heard by administrative law judges, typically by videoconference or in Austin, with judicial review filed in district court. The criminal crossover lands in the county where the operation sits. For Frisco providers north of the county line, felony injury-to-a-child indictments are heard in the district courts at the Collin County Courthouse, 2100 Bloomdale Rd in McKinney, and misdemeanors (including § 42.076 unlicensed-operation cases) in the county courts at law in the same building. Frisco addresses on the city's west side can sit in Denton County, where cases are heard at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton. Dallas County felony cases are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building; Tarrant County cases at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. As a general practice observation, DFW prosecutors staff child-injury cases through dedicated units and lean heavily on the children's advocacy center interview and the treating physicians — which means the defense medical workup has to start early, not at trial.

Will a Finding Put You in the DFPS Central Registry?

A sustained abuse or neglect finding — not a conviction, a finding — is entered in the DFPS central registry. Under Hum. Res. Code § 42.056, child-care background checks search criminal history, the sex-offender registry, and that central registry, so a registry entry follows a caregiver to every regulated operation in Texas. It is, functionally, a statewide do-not-hire flag for the industry — issued by an agency, on an administrative standard of proof, frequently before any court has looked at the evidence. Providers sometimes confuse it with the Employee Misconduct Registry; the EMR is a separate Health and Safety Code chapter 253 registry for employees of certain HHS-regulated facilities, while child-care findings live in the DFPS central registry — a distinction that determines which due-process track applies to clearing your name.

The collateral fallout extends past the registry. Certain background-check convictions are absolute bars, and § 42.072(f) requires denial or revocation of a family home's listing or registration for convictions under Penal Code Title 5 or 6 or Chapter 43. A felony § 22.04 conviction carries firearm disqualification under Penal Code § 46.04 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), immigration consequences for non-citizens, and civil exposure to the family's lawsuit. A finding against a director can follow her into CPS scrutiny of her own household. And because compliance history is public, even a fully defended case leaves a posted investigation trail that parents will read — one more reason to contest weak findings rather than absorb them.

Can You Appeal — and When Can You Reapply?

Adverse action is appealable as of right: SOAH contested case first, then judicial review under the substantial-evidence standard — the route Mega Child Care confirmed stays open. But the five-year bar of § 42.072(c) frames every strategic choice along the way, because it runs from the date revocation takes effect, the denial becomes final, or the facility closes. Two consequences follow. First, an early voluntary closure does not reset anything — it can start the same five-year clock a revocation would. Second, the cheapest point to win is before adverse action issues, while the file can still resolve as corrective action; the most expensive is after a default, when the findings are final and unreviewable. A provider who calls counsel at the exit-conference stage keeps every one of those doors open.

Hypothetical example (illustrative only, not a real case): an infant-room caregiver at a licensed Frisco center notices a toddler favoring one arm after nap. The center documents it, calls the parents, and the ER finds a spiral fracture. DFPS opens an abuse investigation of the caregiver; HHSC opens a standards investigation of supervision and ratios; the hospital's mandatory report routes to Frisco PD. Three files, one incident. Whether the caregiver is registry-listed, the center placed on probation, and anyone charged under § 22.04 will turn on the medical dating of the fracture and the interview record built in the first two weeks. A second illustration: a Frisco resident keeps six unrelated children for pay in her home without a listing or registration — before any child is ever harmed, she is already committing a Class B misdemeanor under § 42.076(b), and the path back to lawful operation runs through HHSC permitting, not around it.