in the Interest of G.X.H., Jr. and B.X.H., Children, 627 S.W.3d 288

Background

On Sept. 21, 2017 the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed suit seeking termination of parental rights and the trial court appointed the Department temporary managing conservator; the statutory automatic dismissal date under Tex. Fam. Code § 263.401 was Sept. 24, 2018.
The Department filed a Motion for Continuance and a Motion to Retain Suit (to extend the dismissal date) on Aug. 27, 2018; the motion was noticed for hearing Aug. 29, 2018.
The trial court’s docket sheet entry for Aug. 29, 2018 reflects an agreed continuance of the trial to Oct. 17, 2018 and an “extension granted to reach the agreed trial date.”
The trial convened Oct. 17, 2018 (one Department witness testified), recessed, and later resumed Dec. 18, 2018; the trial court signed a Final Decree terminating both parents’ rights in December 2018.
The parents appealed, arguing the Final Decree was void because jurisdiction automatically terminated Sept. 24, 2018 under § 263.401(a); the court of appeals agreed. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under §263.401 (automatic dismissal)	Parents: trial did not commence before Sept. 24, 2018 so jurisdiction terminated and Final Decree is void	Department: trial court extended dismissal under §263.401(b) (as reflected in Aug. 29 docket entry) and trial commenced Oct. 17, so jurisdiction continued	Court: Reversed court of appeals — the Aug. 29 docket entry evidenced a valid extension under §263.401(b) and trial commenced within the permissible period, so jurisdiction remained and decree is not void
Waiver/preservation of Department’s extension argument	Parents: Department waived extension argument by not raising it in its appellee brief in the court of appeals	Department: it prevailed below and therefore could raise arguments supporting the trial-court judgment in rehearing or petition for review	Court: No waiver under Gilbert; issue could be raised in motion for rehearing or petition for review and was timely raised
Form and timing of required findings / record of hearing	Parents: court needed written findings and an order resetting dismissal date before Sept. 24; absence of reporter’s record shows no hearing or findings	Department: required findings may be made orally or on the docket under Fam. Code §101.026; Aug. 29 docket entry and implied on‑the‑record findings suffice	Court: Findings may be made orally/on docket; where hearing occurred and no reporter record is supplied by challenger, necessary findings may be implied; parents waived complaints about missing record/inadequate notice
Estoppel / invited‑error doctrines	Parents: Department’s failure to raise extension earlier or its conduct should preclude reliance on extension now	Department: no prior inconsistent action; position here is consistent with its trial position	Court: Doctrines inapplicable; no unequivocal inconsistent conduct by Department

Key Cases Cited

Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (appellee who prevailed below need not raise every supporting argument in the court of appeals and may raise it in rehearing or petition for review)
Dikeman v. Snell, 490 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1973) (orders entered after a court loses jurisdiction are void)
In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (statute requires specific findings to support an extension of custody-related deadlines)
Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (judgment is void only when court clearly lacked jurisdiction)
Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (court may imply findings when no written findings requested)
BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (necessary facts are implied if no findings issued or requested)
Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2005) (estoppel requires an unequivocal, adverse position taken by a party)
In re D.S., 602 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. 2020) (in absence of a reporter’s record, appellate courts presume evidence supported the trial court’s ruling)