Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2008-DFPS-v-Dickensheets-by-Keyes-CPS-suit-constitutional-challenge-re-deadline-separations-of-powers.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:46:34+00:00

Document:
policy of facilitating permanence and stability in the lives of children subject to DFPS's involvement.
Clause in the Texas Constitution.
Code requesting a 180-day extension of the final order date to comply with section 263.401.
2007, DFPS filed an amended SAPCR petition that named only S.S.W., T.R.W., and T.A.D.
to the extension sought by DFPS.
reached an agreement regarding all of the children except T.A.D.
appealable order as defined by Family Code section 263.401(d). We agree.
person, or the department as the managing conservator of the child.
[hereinafter Former Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401] (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Fam.
263.401(d)(2) of the Family Code.
We sustain DFPS's first issue on appeal.
We deny Andrea's and Travis's motion to dismiss DFPS's appeal.
relationship or requests that the department be named conservator of the child.
for dismissal of the suit under this subsection.
637, 645 (Tex. 2005); Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers' Comp.
unconstitutionally." City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Comm'n, 51 S.W.3d 231, 240-41 (Tex.
(citing Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 518). A facially unconstitutional statute is void from its inception.
Reyes, 753 S.W.2d at 383.
power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.
effectively exercise its constitutionally assigned powers.
Jones v. State, 803 S.W.2d 712, 715-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Armadillo Bail Bonds v.
Johnson v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 87, 58 S.W. 60, 71 (1900)).
exceed the grant of power in Article V, § 25, supra, thereby encroaching upon another department."
requirement that a right exist before a procedural guidelines could be enacted to enforce it. Id.
for delay; (3) timeliness of assertion of right to speedy trial; and (4) any prejudice caused by delay).
separation of powers provision in the Constitution. Id. at 257.
establishment of procedural rules of court. See Meshell, 739 S.W.2d at 255; Gov't Servs. Ins.
prepare their cases. See Armadillo Bail Bonds, 802 S.W.2d at 839; Meshell, 739 S.W.2d at 255.
months of removal." (11) Id. at 19 (emphasis added).
417 (Tex. App.--Waco 1999, pet. denied).
resolution" in cases involving child custody. See Proffer, 734 S.W.2d at 673.
proceedings unless a statutorily provided extension is obtained. See Former Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
To Promote Adoption, Final Report at 19.
Speedy Trial Act, which was declared unconstitutional.
The two statutes are distinguishable in at least two important respects.
interest of the child." See Former Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401(b).
section is in the best interest of the child." Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1090, 2001 Tex.
related to the entry of a final order.
with the prosecutor's function, as a SAPCR can be refiled.
Rule 11 agreement that satisfied the requirements of a final order under section 263.401(d)(2).
interferes with its prosecutorial function.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.
required to complete drug/alcohol assessments and follow all CPS recommendations.
DFPS's arguments in reference to the former statute.
have rendered a final order. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401 (Vernon Supp. 2008).
pet. ref'd); see Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 846, 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
occurs during trial. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.401(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008).
the dispatch of business therein.
Tex. Const. art. V, § 25 (repealed).
10. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Texas Const., art. I, § 10.
May 28, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 603, § 14, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2108, 2126.
"12-month deadline for [DFPS] to seek termination of parental rights or return a child to the family."
Tex. Sunset Advisory Comm'n, Dep't of Protective and Regulatory Servs., Staff Report 37 (1996).
Juvenile Justice & Family Issues, Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B. 2249, 77th Leg., R.S. (2001).
15. The Amarillo Court of Appeals addressed this issue in In re L.L., 65 S.W.3d 194, 196-197 (Tex.
believe that further analysis is necessary, which we have set out above.

References: § 263
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 25
 § 263
 § 263
 v. 
 § 263
 § 25
 § 10
 § 14