S. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-22-00189-CV

Background

The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator on Aug. 7, 2020; the initial statutory dismissal deadline was Aug. 9, 2021.
On Apr. 16, 2021, the trial court’s Permanency Hearing Order expressly found that extraordinary circumstances existed and that continuing the Department as TMC was in the children’s best interest, and stated an extension of up to 180 days should be granted.
At a June 2021 permanency hearing the Department requested a 180‑day extension; the court orally granted an extension, wrote “Extension granted” in the June order, and the June order stated that all prior orders (including the April 16 order) would continue without modification. The June order did not restate the subsection (b) findings or clearly change the written dismissal date; no party objected.
The trial court later signed an order (Jan. 26, 2022) adjusting the dismissal date under the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency COVID order; a jury trial occurred in March 2022 and terminated both parents’ rights.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked jurisdiction after Aug. 9, 2021 because the June hearing did not include the statutory subsection (b) findings required to extend the automatic dismissal deadline; and (2) the final termination order included statutory ground 161.001(b)(1)(P) that was not submitted to the jury.
The Court of Appeals held the court had timely made the subsection (b) findings (via the Apr. 16 order and June oral ruling/incorporation) and therefore retained jurisdiction, but it modified the termination order to delete the unsubmitted subsection (P) ground and affirmed as modified.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction on Aug. 9, 2021 because the June 2021 hearing/order lacked the §263.401(b) findings required to extend the dismissal deadline	June 2021 order did not contain the required subsection (b) findings, so the one‑year dismissal ran and the suit was automatically dismissed	The court made the subsection (b) findings in the Apr. 16, 2021 Permanency Order and reconfirmed the extension orally in June; the June order incorporated the April order, so jurisdiction continued	Court held the April 16 findings plus the June oral ruling/incorporation satisfied §263.401(b); jurisdiction was retained and the termination order is not void
Whether including §161.001(b)(1)(P) as a statutory ground in the final termination order was error when that ground was not submitted to the jury	The termination order included subsection (P) even though it was not submitted to the jury, so the finding is invalid	The Department alleged (P) in the petition but did not submit it to the jury; it agreed the inclusion in the final order was erroneous	Court held (P) was waived by omission from the charge and modified the Order of Termination to delete subsection (P); affirmed as modified

Key Cases Cited

In re G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2021) (subsection (b) extension findings may be made orally or in writing; parents challenging an extension bear the burden to show lack of supporting evidence)
In re P.Z.F., 651 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021) (appellate practice is generally to uphold properly supported §263.401(b) extension findings)
DiGiuseppe v. Lawler, 269 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. 2008) (failure to submit an independent ground to the jury waives that ground on appeal)