In THE INTEREST OF J.S., a CHILD v. the State of Texas, 670 S.W.3d 591

J.S., born to parents with significant drug histories, was removed by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) shortly after birth; DFPS was appointed temporary managing conservator in February 2020.
DFPS filed to terminate parental rights and set the initial automatic dismissal/trial-deadline for February 8, 2021 (one year after the temporary order).
At the February 8, 2021 hearing the court reset the trial to June 14, 2021 and orally extended the dismissal date, making an oral "best interest" finding but not expressly stating an "extraordinary circumstances" finding; neither parent objected.
A signed March 30, 2021 written order later recited both required findings; trial occurred June 14–16, 2021, and the court signed a final judgment terminating parental rights on September 20, 2021.
The court of appeals sua sponte held the trial court lost jurisdiction on February 8, 2021 because the earlier oral extension lacked an express "extraordinary circumstances" finding, vacated the judgment, and dismissed the suit; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DFPS’s Argument	Held
Whether the §263.401(b) "extraordinary circumstances" and "best interest" findings may be implied from the record	Implied findings suffice if the record supports them	Findings must be made expressly (oral on the record or in writing)	Findings must be made expressly (oral or written); implied findings are insufficient
Whether failure to make those express findings before the automatic dismissal date deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction	The findings are jurisdictional prerequisites; failure is incurable and may be raised for the first time on appeal	The findings are mandatory but non-jurisdictional; statutory requirements are presumptively non-jurisdictional	The findings are mandatory but non-jurisdictional; failing to make them is error subject to waiver/preservation rules
Whether Mother may raise for the first time on appeal that the trial court failed to make an express "extraordinary circumstances" finding by the deadline	She may because loss of jurisdiction is appealable at any time	She waived the complaint by not objecting before the dismissal date	Mother failed to preserve the complaint; the court of appeals erred in raising the non-jurisdictional issue sua sponte

In re G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021) (trial courts must make the §263.401(b) findings expressly; scope of jurisdictional requirement clarified)
In re Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (§263.401(b) requires specific findings to retain the suit beyond the one-year dismissal date)
Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chicas, 593 S.W.3d 284 (Tex. 2019) (statutory requirements are presumptively non-jurisdictional absent clear legislative intent)
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (policy favoring finality and limiting collateral attacks on judgments)
In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (recognition of parents’ heightened fundamental liberty interest in custody)
Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1999) (the word "shall" is generally mandatory)