Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2008-In-re-Walker-by-Jennings-termination-mandamus-granted-to-dismiss.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:41:14+00:00

Document:
dismissal date had passed (2) and she has no adequate remedy by appeal.
We conditionally grant Walker's petition for writ of mandamus.
fathers' parent-child relationship with the children.
parties agreed at argument, that the trial court had subsequently reset the trial for June 4, 2008.
S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2006); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004).
legal ruling. In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 612.
court to dismiss the suit.
parent-child relationship or requests that the department be named conservator of the child.
date for dismissal of the suit under this subsection.
person, or the department as managing conservator of the child.
subchapter by agreement or otherwise.
all of the department's evidence, other than rebuttal evidence, at the trial on the merits.
words included in the statutes. Id.
Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 612.
However, on August 28, 2007, the trial court granted Walker's timely-filed motion for new trial.
been had" and that "the court essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over"); Montemayor v.
render a final order before the required date for dismissal of the suit. See id.
TDFPS had "introduced all of [its] evidence, other than rebuttal evidence, at the trial on the merits,"
263.401(a). See Former Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.402.
render a final order before the dismissal deadline, which passed in July 2007.
motion requesting the court to render a final order must be made before the deadline for dismissal.
other than rebuttal evidence, at the trial on the merits." See id.
her complaint known to the trial court to afford it an opportunity to avoid or correct error. Valdez v.
Valdez, 930 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); see also Tex. R. App. P.
requesting the court to render a final order before the deadline for dismissal. See Former Tex. Fam.
requesting a trial court to render a final order unless the trial court was in a position to do so.
court that the deadline had passed prior to TDFPS's presentation of the evidence.
extend the deadlines set by the court under this subchapter by agreement or otherwise." See Tex.
requires trial courts, in these types of cases, to automatically consider whether to grant a new trial.
terminated, the mother informed the trial court that she wanted to appeal and wanted an attorney.
that granting it would not result in delay or otherwise injure TDFPS. Id. at 116 (citing Craddock v.
dismissal of the suit, or seek an additional 180-day extension of the deadline.
Id. at 116 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
prescribed in section 263.401 are not modified by the granting of a new trial. (21) See id.
terminated or families reunified within twelve months." In re Ludwig, 150 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex.
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in not dismissing TDFPS's suit against Walker.
another plain, adequate, and complete remedy." Id.
of mandamus" and, thus, they had an adequate appellate remedy. Id. at 614.
granted, the dismissal deadline, at the latest, would have expired in January 2008. See Tex. Fam.
24, 2004 and the trial court terminated the parental rights only a few days later on July 28, 2004.
210 S.W.3d at 611. Here, the dismissal deadline passed in July 2007, approximately one year ago.
may ripen is uncertain. See In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Services, 210 S.W.3d at 614.
appeal to address the trial court's failure to dismiss TDFPS's suit to terminate her parental rights.
if the trial court does not comply.
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.
En banc consideration was requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c).
A majority of the en banc court voted to deny en banc consideration. See id.
Justice Keyes, dissenting from denial of en banc consideration. Dissenting opinion to follow.
In the Interest of W, No. 2006-06805J (314th District Court, Harris County, Tex.).
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401 (Vernon Supp. 2007)).
not relators in this proceeding.
See Former Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401.
Tex. R. App. P. 43.6.
The dismissal deadlines in section 263.401 are procedural, not jurisdictional. See In re J.C.J., No.
05-05-01555-CV, 2006 WL 2348987, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.--Dallas Aug. 15, 2006, no pet.) (mem.
. . . ." See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401 (Vernon Supp. 2007).
new trial, would have provided the required "final order" within the prescribed time period. See Tex.
reporter or in writing, including on the court's docket sheet or by a separate written instrument.").
the statutory findings and other requirements necessary to grant the extension. See id.
the extended period would have expired, at the latest, in January 2008.
applying the current version of section 263.402(b), Walker's motion would still be timely.
Again, we note that we stayed the June 4, 2008 trial.
TDFPS does not explain why this mandate likely occurs outside the statutory deadline.
further deadlines after appellate review of such a final, appealable order. See id.
possession of Walker's children precludes the availability of mandamus relief in this case.
problem remains under the 2007 version.
the criteria of section 263.401(b).
department be named conservator of the child.
before the required date for dismissal of the suit under this subsection.
See Act of May 28, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 600, § 17, 1997 Tex. Gen.
Gen. Laws 2395, 2396, amended by Act of May 29, 2005, 79th Leg., R.
§ 1.40, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 621, 636 [hereinafter FORMER TEX. FAM.
is no longer a requirement of the trial court’s retaining jurisdiction. TEX.
dismissed. . . .” Id. § 263.401(b).
were not timely ended as required by section 263.401(a).
on the court’s docket sheet or by a separate written instrument”); In re A.
order terminating Walker’s parental rights.
its final order or judgment with the least possible delay.
be combined with a motion for new trial.
for new trial within 20 days of the signing of a final decree).
Dist.] June 30, 2008, orig. proceeding).
Id. at 15–16 (citations omitted).
other than rebuttal evidence at the trial on the merits.
termination proceedings for failure to render a timely final order.
112 (Tex. 2006), and In the Interest of D.D.M., 116 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.
dismissal date without rendition of a final order.
plain language of section 263.401(b), it was invalid.” Id. at 231.
erred in not dismissing the proceedings. Id.
an order extending the trial court’s jurisdiction.
rights and naming DFPS the sole managing conservator of the children.
commenced, the case must be dismissed from the docket. See TEX.
seeking to compel the trial court to dismiss the case. Id.
version of the statute. See id.
commences. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.402(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007).
Protective Services would not have been timely under the new version.
the court of appeals erred in granting mandamus relief. Id. at 613–14.
signedits judgment onAugust 13, 2004, after the dismissal date.
for seeking rendition of judgment, since rendition had already occurred.
In re Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 613.
without an accelerated motion for new trial. See FORMER TEX. FAM.
filing a notice of appeal, including filing a statement of points on appeal.
injure the plaintiff, CPS, or the children. 7 Id. at 114–17; see Craddock v.
injure CPS or the children. Id. at 115–16.
dismissal date and timely filed a statement of points on appeal.
jurisdiction was necessary or was sought.
terminated or families reunified within twelve months.’” In re Walker, No.
children affected by termination proceedings.
Keyes, dissenting from denial of en banc review.

References: v.

 § 263
 v.

 v.

 § 263
 § 263
 § 263
 § 17

§ 1
 § 263
 § 263
 v.