C. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
03-21-00587-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 15, 2022Background
- DFPS filed suit Aug. 14, 2019 seeking termination/conservatorship for L.W. (born Mar. 9, 2019) based on alleged exposure to methamphetamine use and domestic violence by Mother’s boyfriend.
- Son was placed with maternal grandparents shortly after removal and lived with them thereafter; DFPS later sought to appoint the grandparents joint managing conservators.
- Bench trial before an associate judge ran June–Aug. 2021; associate judge appointed the maternal grandparents joint managing conservators (Aug. 31, 2021).
- Mother requested a de novo district‑court hearing (held Oct. 12, 2021); the district court confirmed the associate judge’s ruling and signed its de novo order (Dec. 14, 2021) appointing grandparents as joint managing conservators and Mother/Father as possessory conservators.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the district court lost jurisdiction because the final hearing did not commence before the §263.401 automatic dismissal date, and (2) the court abused its discretion in appointing the maternal grandparents over Mother (claiming the parental‑custody presumption was not overcome).
- Trial evidence: Mother had engaged services, was employed and housed via a youth program, but the Department and guardian ad litem presented evidence of ongoing risky relationships (an alleged meth‑using, abusive boyfriend and another man with criminal history), a January 2021 assault, prior interstate departure during the case, unstable/unsanitary housing concerns, and strong bonding/stability with the grandparents.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction / timeliness of notice of appeal | Notice was untimely because it referenced the associate judge’s Aug. 31 order | Notice referred to district‑court de novo order (filed after de novo hearing); a prematurely filed notice is effective when the appealable order is later signed | Court had jurisdiction; Mother’s notice was premature not late and therefore timely |
| Automatic dismissal date under Tex. Fam. Code §263.401 | Final hearing did not commence before the dismissal date, so district court lost jurisdiction and order is void | Successive Texas Supreme Court COVID emergency orders authorized extensions; local extensions extended dismissal dates and trial began before final dismissal | Court retained jurisdiction; trial commenced before the final dismissal date given emergency orders and local extensions |
| Conservatorship appointment (parental‑custody presumption) | Department failed to rebut the presumption that appointing Mother as managing conservator was in Son’s best interest | Evidence showed Mother’s continued risky relationships, unstable housing, prior interstate absence, and that Son was bonded with grandparents in a stable placement | No abuse of discretion; evidence supported finding that appointing Mother would significantly impair Son’s physical or emotional development and grandparents’ appointment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021) (automatic dismissal under Fam. Code §263.401 when trial not commenced)
- Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (parental‑custody presumption; nonparent must prove significant impairment)
- Danet v. Bhan, 436 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2014) (stable placement and bonding can support finding that return would cause significant impairment)
- Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and deference to trial court factfinding)
- Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008) (liberal interpretation of appellate rules to preserve appellate rights)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (do not elevate form over substance in notice‑of‑appeal analysis)