In re C.T., 491 S.W.3d 323

Background

In Nov. 2013 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) obtained an emergency order and removed seven children from the Relators’ home; an adversary hearing occurred Jan. 7, 2014.
At the adversary hearing the court returned several children to the Relators but kept I.C. in the Department’s temporary managing conservatorship; the court made no statutorily required findings that I.C. faced a continuing danger to her physical health or safety.
The Department filed a SAPCR seeking conservatorship and termination; the one-year mandatory dismissal deadline under Tex. Fam. Code § 263.401 fell on Nov. 24, 2014.
The trial court orally granted an extension at a June 30, 2014 hearing (citing jury request and multiple children) but did not set a new dismissal date until Dec. 12, 2014—after the one-year deadline had passed.
The Relators filed a motion to dismiss the Department’s suit based on the missed deadline and later intervened/cross‑petitioned seeking conservatorship and termination; separate trials were ordered, and the mother’s parental rights were later terminated by settlement while the Relators’ claims remained pending.

Issues

Issue	Relators' Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether court lawfully retained I.C. after the Jan. 2014 adversary hearing without the § 262.201(b) findings	Trial court lacked evidence and thus clearly erred; I.C. should have been returned	Department relied on welfare concerns (education, unsupervised children, other conduct) to justify continued custody	Dissent: court failed to make required findings; retention appears unsupported and merits review
Who bore legal entitlement to possession at the adversary hearing	Relators claimed temporary managing/possessory conservator status (voluntary relinquishment + Tarrant County order) entitled them to possession	Department contested continuing entitlement/raised other concerns	Dissent: if Relators were legally entitled to possession, court had no discretion to refuse return; record unclear whether documents were before the court
Validity of the dismissal‑deadline extension under § 263.401(b)	Extension was invalid because court did not set a new dismissal date before the original deadline and did not make required findings of extraordinary circumstances	Department asserts jury scheduling and multiple children justified extension; oral extension was sufficient until memorialized	Dissent: extension invalid absent pre‑deadline written order setting new dismissal date; statute requires specific findings and a new date within 180 days
Availability of mandamus and adequacy of appeal	Relators: no adequate appellate remedy because orders are interlocutory and further delay would irreparably harm child–caregiver relationship	Department: issues could be resolved in ongoing proceedings and appeals	Dissent: mandamus appropriate because interlocutory orders and loss of irreplaceable familial time make appeal inadequate

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality recognition of parental liberty interest)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parental rights to direct child upbringing)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (continued removal warranted only where continuing danger to physical health or safety exists)
Brown v. McLennan Cty. Children’s Protective Servs., 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982) (legislative interest in stability for children after voluntary relinquishment)
In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (courts must follow statutory procedures for Department SAPCRs and may not casually extend deadlines)
In re C.V.G., 112 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (extension invalid if new dismissal date not set)
In re D.D.M., 116 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2003) (intervenor claims may preserve relief where Department action should have been dismissed)
In re Pate, 407 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (mandamus appropriate when no evidence supports continued possession after emergency removal)