in Re: C.D., F.D. and L.C.
05-21-00768-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 17, 2022Background
- On July 3, 2019 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed petitions to terminate the parents’ rights and the trial court appointed the Department temporary managing conservator; the children were placed with relators (foster parents) in July/August 2019.
- The trial court extended the automatic-dismissal date to January 2, 2021 but did not enter any further extension before that date expired.
- Relators filed a petition in intervention on December 3, 2020 seeking termination of both parents’ rights and appointment as joint permanent managing conservators.
- Mother moved (Aug. 26, 2021) to strike/dismiss the intervention on the sole ground that the Texas Supreme Court’s COVID-19 emergency orders tolled the foster-parent 12‑month placement requirement for standing; the trial court granted the motion and struck the petition on Aug. 31, 2021.
- Relators filed an original mandamus petition in the Fifth Court of Appeals; the Department argued the mandamus was moot because the trial court lost jurisdiction over the underlying DFPS suit when the dismissal date passed.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on the intervention, held the trial court abused its discretion by applying the Supreme Court’s emergency order to toll the 12‑month placement requirement, and conditionally granted mandamus vacating the order striking the intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court lost jurisdiction over the intervention when the Dept.’s dismissal date passed | Relators: court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate their intervention | Department: trial court lost jurisdiction over the SAPCR before ruling, so mandamus moot | Held: court retained jurisdiction over relators’ intervention; mandamus not moot |
| Whether the Texas Supreme Court COVID emergency orders tolled/suspended the 12‑month placement requirement for foster‑parent standing | Mother: emergency order suspended relevant deadlines including placement period | Relators: emergency order did not suspend the 12‑month rule | Held: emergency order’s paragraph 4 prohibited modifying/suspending Subtitle E deadlines except dismissal date; 12‑month requirement not tolled; trial court abused discretion |
| Whether relators requested leave to intervene | Department: relators failed to request leave | Relators: the petition reasonably requests leave to intervene | Held: petition can be read as seeking leave; failure to label request not fatal |
| Whether relators presented satisfactory proof that appointing the parents would significantly impair the children (§102.004(b)) | Department: relators did not present satisfactory proof | Relators: Department’s live pleadings include assertions (drug/mental‑health facts) that could satisfy impairment showing | Held: Court declined to resolve on merits — issue not litigated below and relators were not given opportunity to present evidence; remand for consideration on developed record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021) (automatic‑dismissal timing and requirements under Tex. Fam. Code § 263.401)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standard for abuse of discretion in mandamus review)
- Tex. Ass’ns of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing may be raised at any time and is jurisdictional)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (judicial admissions bind parties and relieve adversary of proof)
- In re M.K.S.–V., 301 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite in SAPCRs governed by Family Code)
- In re E.G.L., 378 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (statutory standing to seek relief in SAPCR is governed by Family Code)
- In re I.I.G.T., 412 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (foster‑parent standing to seek conservatorship requires meeting Family Code criteria)
- Geary v. Peavy, 878 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1994) (mandamus appropriate when trial court’s jurisdiction is challenged in child‑custody proceedings)
- In re Martin, 523 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017) (mandamus is appropriate to review orders denying or granting motions to dismiss for lack of standing in SAPCRs)
- In re Shifflet, 462 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (no adequate remedy by appeal for orders dismissing interventions for lack of standing)