in the Interest of R.D., a Child, 02-21-00125-CV

Four-year-old Zoey arrived at Cook Children’s in cardiac arrest and later died; medical evidence showed severe blunt-force trauma and autopsy ruled homicidal violence. Father admitted whipping Zoey with a belt and provided inconsistent histories.
Father was indicted for capital murder related to Zoey’s death and was jailed; Rhonda (another child of Father) was removed by DFPS, later returned to her mother as monitored placement.
A termination trial for Father’s parental rights to Rhonda was set and held April 16, 2021; the trial court terminated Father’s rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O).
At the start of trial Father’s counsel made an oral continuance request, stating he lost internet access and awaited the name of an expert from Father’s criminal-defense attorney; counsel asked for delay because Father’s criminal trial was unlikely for about a year.
The Department, guardian ad litem, and mother opposed delay on permanency/best-interest grounds. The trial court denied the oral motion; Father appealed only the denial of the continuance.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State/Opposing Argument	Held
Whether denial of an oral continuance was an abuse of discretion under Tex. R. Civ. P. 251/252	Counsel couldn’t file a verified motion the night before due to internet outage and needed time to obtain an expert opinion; requested continuance to secure that testimony	Motion lacked the Rule 251 affidavit/swearing requirement; counsel failed to show materiality, due diligence, or identify the expert as required by Rule 252	Denial was not an abuse of discretion: oral request didn’t meet Rules 251/252 (no affidavit, no materiality/diligence shown)
Whether trial court should have extended the statutory dismissal deadline under Fam. Code § 263.401(b) because of pending criminal charges	Criminal indictment and uncertain criminal-trial date constitute extraordinary circumstances needing extension so Father could address services/defense	Extension would not serve the child’s best interest; delays caused by parent’s circumstances are generally not "extraordinary" and further delay won’t enable services completion	Denial affirmed: Father failed to show extraordinary circumstances or that extension was in child’s best interest
Whether denial of continuance violated Father’s constitutional rights	Denial prevented full defense of Father’s constitutional rights	Father did not raise an express constitutional objection at trial, so claim not preserved	Constitutional complaint not preserved for appeal; holding against Father

In re J.S.S., 594 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019) (presumption of no abuse when Rule 251 requirements not met)
In re J.P.-L., 592 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019) (oral continuance denied where movant failed to comply with Rule 251)
Beaupre v. Beaupre, 700 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985) (due-diligence requirement for continuance when seeking information from doctors)
In re L.N.C., 573 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019) (distinguishing verified-motion failures where bench warrant/no-show prevented filing)
In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (focus for dismissal-extension inquiry is child’s needs and best interest)
In re O.R.F., 417 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (parent-caused delays ordinarily not "extraordinary circumstances")
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (standard for appellate review: abuse of discretion when trial court acts without guiding rules or principles)