in the Interest of T.W., a Child, 557 S.W.3d 841

Department of Family and Protective Services was appointed temporary managing conservator of T.W. on April 27, 2016.
Termination suit was filed in April 2016; appellants J.D. and E.K. do not challenge sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury verdict.
Trial was originally set for April 26, 2017 (first-anniversary window); on April 24, 2017 J.D. and E.K. jointly moved to continue to complete services and obtained a docket entry and subsequent written order extending the dismissal date to October 28, 2017. The written order did not expressly recite the extraordinary-circumstances findings or a new trial date.
Trial court called a final hearing on October 17, 2017, testimony was heard, and the proceeding was recessed to January 16, 2018 (with parties’ acquiescence).
J.D. and E.K. argued (1) the suit should have been dismissed for failure to begin trial within one year of the Department’s appointment, (2) the suit automatically dismissed after the extended dismissal date, and (3) their trial counsel were ineffective for failing to move to dismiss.
The trial court entered judgment terminating the parent–child relationship; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether suit should have been dismissed for not commencing trial within one year after Department appointment (first-anniversary)	J.D./E.K.: trial did not begin within one year; dismissal required	Trial court extended dismissal date on motion of J.D./E.K.; they waived objection by requesting extension and did not move to dismiss before trial	Overruled — appellants requested extension and waived the objection; no timely dismissal motion was filed
Whether suit automatically dismissed for failing to begin trial by the extended dismissal date (Oct. 28, 2017)	J.D./E.K.: cause should have been automatically dismissed when new dismissal date passed	2017 statutory automatic-dismissal amendment did not apply to this 2016 suit; appellants also failed to timely move to dismiss; trial activity on Oct. 17, 2017 began within the 180-day extension	Overruled — amendment inapplicable; no timely dismissal motion; trial commenced within extension period
Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to move to dismiss	J.D./E.K.: counsel ineffective for not seeking dismissal (prejudice alleged)	Court: no record explanation for counsel’s conduct; counsel may have reasonably chosen not to contradict clients’ request for more time; appellants bear burden to show deficiency and prejudice	Overruled — no firmly founded record showing ineffective assistance; appellants failed to meet burden

In re J.L.C., 194 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (party who moves for extension waives complaint about extension)
In re B.G., 317 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2010) (parents in termination cases are entitled to appointed, effective counsel)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (standard for assessing appointed counsel in parental-termination cases mirrors criminal ineffective-assistance standard)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appellate counsel believes appeal is frivolous)