663 S.W.3d 784
Tex. App.2022Background
- DFPS filed a petition to terminate parental rights and was appointed temporary managing conservator on February 4, 2020; the statutory initial dismissal date (first Monday after one year) was February 8, 2021.
- On February 8, 2021 the trial did not commence; the court announced a jury trial date (June 14) and made an oral statement that the case would be extended and the Department would remain temporary managing conservator.
- The court signed written findings on March 30, 2021 stating extraordinary circumstances and setting a new dismissal date (August 7); those written findings were entered after the February 8 dismissal date.
- A jury trial occurred June 14–15, 2021 and the trial court signed a termination judgment on September 20, 2021 terminating Mother’s parental rights.
- On appeal Mother challenged sufficiency of evidence and admission of drug-test results; the Court of Appeals sua sponte questioned whether the trial court retained jurisdiction under Family Code §263.401.
- The court concluded the trial court’s jurisdiction terminated on February 8, 2021 because it did not make the required extraordinary-circumstances finding before that date; the September 20 judgment was therefore void, so the appellate court vacated the judgment and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court retained jurisdiction under Fam. Code §263.401 | Mother argued trial court lacked timely extension so case should be dismissed | DFPS argued the court’s oral February 8 statement plus March 30 written order cured any timing defect and Mother waived timing objections | Court held jurisdiction terminated Feb 8, 2021; oral remark did not make the required "extraordinary circumstances" finding and the March 30 order was too late; judgment void and case dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for statutory termination grounds | Mother argued evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove §§161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O),(P) | DFPS argued the jury’s findings were supported by the evidence | Not reached on merits because judgment vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in child’s best interest | Mother argued evidence insufficient to prove best interest | DFPS argued evidence supported best-interest finding | Not reached on merits because judgment vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
| Admissibility of methamphetamine drug-test results | Mother contended trial court abused discretion admitting tests for her, the child, and father | DFPS defended admissibility; argued any error was harmless | Not reached on merits because judgment vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.S., 602 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. 2020) (standards for when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
- Interest of G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021) (construction of Fam. Code §263.401 and which requirements are jurisdictional)
- Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2012) (appellate courts’ power is limited to declaring underlying orders void and making related orders)
- Tullos v. Eaton Corp., 695 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1985) (jurisdictional questions may be raised at any time)