Opinion ID: 895080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Dismiss

Text: We review a trial court's interpretation of the law de novo. State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex.2006). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or properly applying the law. In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex.2006). If the trial court fails to properly interpret the law or applies the law incorrectly, it abuses its discretion. Id. Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004). A court of appeals improperly issues mandamus if the trial court did not abuse its discretion or if the record fails to demonstrate the lack of an adequate remedy on appeal. Id.
The Legislature has granted the Department authority to take possession of children and file suit to seek the termination of parental rights, as it did in this case. See TEX. FAM.CODE §§ 161.001, 262.001(a). However, the Legislature has prescribed with particularity how certain aspects of such suits must be conducted. The statute is clear that the suits must be dismissed on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date the Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, absent the rendering of a final order or the granting of an extension. Id. § 263.401(a); see In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 612 (Subsection 263.401(a) of the Texas Family Code requires a trial court to dismiss a SAPCR filed by the Department if a final order has not been rendered by the deadline.). The court cannot just enter an extension order, though. In order for the suit to remain on the court's docket beyond the one-year dismissal date, the court must make specific findings to support the extension order: the court may not retain the suit on the court's docket after the one-year dismissal date unless the court makes specific findings as set out in the statute. TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.401(b) (emphasis added). Even if a trial court enters an extension order, the suit may be retained on the court's docket for a maximum of 180 days after the one-year dismissal date, and the trial court must make specific provision in the order setting (1) the new dismissal date for not later than the 180-day limit, and (2) the trial on the merits for a date that complies with the 180-day limit. Id. § 263.401(b)(1), (3). A trial court may not grant a second extension to retain the suit on the court's docket beyond the 180-day limit. Id. § 263.401(c). Parties may not extend the deadlines set by the court by agreement or otherwise. Id. § 263.402(a). [6] At the time K.W. moved for dismissal of the suit in March 2008, the one-year dismissal date had passed as well as had the 180-day period for the trial court to retain the suit on its docket had it made the required findings for extending the date and entered an extension order, both of which it had not done. The trial court could have retained the suit if K.W. waived her right to dismissal by failing to make (1) a timely motion to dismiss, or (2) a motion requesting the court to render a final order before the deadline for dismissal. Id. § 263.402(b). The two motions are alternative methods of obtaining a dismissal. In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 613. We agree with the court of appeals that K.W. did not waive her right to dismissal by failing to request that the trial court render a final order before the one-year dismissal date of July 23, 2007 because the trial court did render such an order on July 10. It would make no sense to hold that K.W. waived her right to dismissal when the trial court did exactly what she would have been required to request that it do to avoid waiver. Moreover, when the trial court granted a new trial, the one-year dismissal date had passed and another dismissal date had not been set. At that point, K.W. did not have an opportunity to request that the court enter a final order before a dismissal date. Because there was no final order in place as of the time K.W. filed her March 2008 motion to dismiss, her motion was timely when it was filed before the Department had introduced all its evidence, other than rebuttal evidence, at the pending trial on the merits. TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.402(b). Thus, under the clear provisions of the Family Code, the trial court had no discretion to deny K.W.'s motion to dismiss the Department's suit and abused its discretion in doing so. In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 612-13. The Department argues that the trial court rendered a final order on July 10, 2007 before the one-year dismissal date and the rendition of that order allowed the court to retain the case on its docket. We agree that the trial court rendered a final order on July 10 when it orally pronounced the termination of K.W.'s parental rights. See TEX. FAM.CODE § 101.026 (defining render to include an oral pronouncement in the presence of the court reporter); Id. § 263.401(d) [7] (providing that for the purposes of section 263.401, an order terminating the parent-child relationship and appointing the Department as managing conservator of the children is a final order). However, we disagree that the July 10, 2007 order survived the granting of a new trial. When a trial court grants a motion for new trial, the case is reinstated on the trial court's docket as though no trial had occurred, and the slate is essentially wiped clean as to orders such as an oral pronouncement of judgment and written judgment based on the trial. See In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, 2008 WL 3991132 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008). Therefore, both the written and oral orders terminating K.W.'s parental rights were vacated by the order granting a new trial. We agree with the Department that the order granting a new trial could be ungranted or set aside. See id. But if the trial court did so, the original oral order and written judgment terminating K.W.'s rights would not be reinstated; the trial court would have to enter a new judgment. See id. The Department also argues that an interpretation such as the one we make is unreasonable and unworkable because it would be rare or nearly impossible for a trial court to conduct a new trial and render a final order within the one-year statutory deadline if the trial court granted a new trial or an appellate court concluded a new trial was warranted. However, as for a trial court granting a new trial, there are two answers to the Department's argument. First, under the statute, the court may retain the case on its docket for up to an additional 180 days in order to conduct a new trial. TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.401(b). Second, the time limits are set by the Legislature, and it is not for courts to decide if legislative enactments are wise or if particular provisions of statutes could be more effectively worded to reach what courts or litigants might believe to be better or more equitable results. See McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 748 (Tex. 2003) (Our role ... is not to second-guess the policy choices that inform our statutes or to weigh the effectiveness of their results; rather, our task is to interpret those statutes in a manner that effectuates the Legislature's intent.). As for an appellate court granting a new trial, section 263.401 requires dismissal only if the trial court has not rendered a final order by the prescribed or permitted dismissal dates. A predicate for appeal is the existence of a final order. See TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.405 (allowing an appeal of a final order). Further, the statutory deadlines mandate only the trial court's rendition of a final order, not deadlines after appellate review of such an order. The Legislature addressed appellate deadlines in section 263.405, and nothing in that provision creates deadlines after a final order has been appealed. See id. The foregoing interpretation accords with our prior decisions as to the effect of new trial orders and respects the statutory construct. The Legislature set time limits with the intent to expedite resolution of cases of this type. See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353. If rendering a timely order and then granting a new trial would suffice to allow the trial court to retain the case on its docket indefinitely despite motions to dismiss, the time limitations specified by the Legislature would effectively be nullified. We decline to adopt such a construction.
Whether a clear abuse of discretion can be adequately remedied by appeal depends on a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of interlocutory review. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, 2008 WL 4051053 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008). In cases involving child custody, [j]ustice demands a speedy resolution, and we have acknowledged that appeal is frequently inadequate to protect the rights of parents and children. In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d at 613. Here, because the children would remain in the Department's custody despite its retaining them in violation of a statutory provision and it is unknown when the trial court would issue a final order subject to appeal, K.W. has no adequate remedy by appeal.
The dissenting Justices would avoid requiring dismissal of the case by holding that because K.W. requested a new trial and later agreed with the Department to a trial setting beyond 180 days from the one-year dismissal date (even though the trial court had not made findings required for it to retain the suit on its docket for the 180 days or entered an order with a new dismissal date), she either waived or is estopped from asserting the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss. The Department does not raise either of these theories in support of its position, and even if it did, they are not applicable here. The invited error doctrine applies to situations where a party requests the court to make a specific ruling, then complains of that ruling on appeal. See Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex.2005) ([A] party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as `the invited error' doctrine.); see also Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 94-95 (Tex.1999); Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 321-22 (Tex.1984); Patton v. Dallas Gas Co., 108 Tex. 321, 192 S.W. 1060, 1062-63 (1917). The only request K.W. made to the trial court in regard to dismissal was that the suit be dismissed. She does not assert error in regard to what she asked the trial court to do and it did do grant her a new trial at a time the trial court was statutorily authorized to grant a new trial and enter an extension order setting a new dismissal date. She asserts error in regard to what she asked the trial court to do and it did not dodismiss the Department's suit at a point in time beyond any statutorily authorized dismissal date. It was not incumbent on K.W. to advise the trial court of all the ramifications of its granting her motion for new trial. She was entitled to have the trial court consider the motion on its merits, and so far as the record before us shows, that is what the trial court did. The Department makes no claim that K.W. somehow tried to ambush the trial court, or that she had any motive in pursuing a new trial or in agreeing to a continuance of the December 4, 2007 trial date other than protecting her parental and familial rights. The record before us does not show that K.W. was the party who requested continuance of the December trial date; the docket sheet shows only that the court granted the continuance because the attorneys were in trial elsewhere. To the extent the dissents assert or imply that K.W. instigated continuance of the December trial date, the mandamus record does not support that position. K.W.'s actions do not come within the invited error rule. As to estoppel, K.W. takes no position that differs from the one she took in the trial court. For a party to be estopped from asserting a position in an appellate court based on actions it took in the trial court, the party must have unequivocally taken a position in the trial court that is clearly adverse to its position on appeal. Tittizer, 171 S.W.3d at 862; see also Diamond Shamrock Ref. Co., L.P. v. Hall, 168 S.W.3d 164, 170 (Tex.2005); Scoggins v. Curtiss & Taylor, 148 Tex. 15, 219 S.W.2d 451, 454 (1949). In the trial court, K.W. moved for a new trial and does not complain about the granting of that motion. In fact, none of the parties claim the trial court erred in granting a new trial. As noted above, K.W.'s complaint pertains to the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case long after it had granted the new trial but had not entered a final order. Nothing in the record before us or the briefs shows that she made any type of representation regarding her right to have the proceedings dismissed other than moving for dismissal. Certainly there is no indication she made a representation to the effect that the case would not be subject to statutory dismissal provisions if her motion for new trial were to be granted, or that she would not move for dismissal if the trial court and Department did not comply with statutory timeframes. Further, the Family Code specifies that the parties to a suit under this chapter may not extend the deadlines set by the court under this subchapter by agreement or otherwise.  TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.402(a) (emphasis added). Although K.W.'s motion for new trial might be construed as impliedly waiving her right to complain that the Department failed to comply with the one-year dismissal date, it had nothing to do with the extended dismissal date the trial court was permitted to, but did not, set. The parties agreed to a continuance from the December 2007 trial date and that caused the case to be on the court's docket longer than the statutorily permitted 180-day extension period. The trial court was not authorized to extend the time for dismissal again. Id. § 263.401(c) (The court may not grant an additional extension that extends the suit beyond the [180-day] required date for dismissal under Subsection (b).). However, the agreed continuance which the trial court granted did not extend the dismissal deadline because the trial court never set a dismissal date beyond the one-year dismissal date; and even if it had, the statute specifically precludes parties from extending deadlines by agreement. The Family Code evidences a clear intent by the Legislature to prevent cases from lingering on court dockets for extended periods beyond specified timeframes by agreement or otherwise. Id. § 263.402(a). The dissenting Justices would rely on the parties' agreed continuance to effectively negate the statutes' deadlines. That would offend the Family Code by (1) impermissibly extending the statutory deadlines, and (2) doing so by agreement of the parties. The legal problem here is not one K.W. created, and she should not forfeit protections designed to assure prompt processing of both children and parents through the system because she sought to protect her rights via a procedural vehicle provided for by rule and by statute. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 320; TEX. FAM.CODE § 263.405. Motions for new trial are not only allowed, but in some instances are required to preserve error. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 324(b); TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1. Here, the result was the granting of a new trialexactly what motions for new trial are designed to allow. The trial court did not set out its reasons for granting a new trial, but the judge apparently concluded that there was cause to grant the motion and retry the case. [8] And the statute allowed time for retrial if the trial court had proceeded according to the statute. It was up to the Department or the children's attorney, if the children's attorney believed it was in their best interests, to oppose K.W.'s motion for new trial or move for an extension order. The trial court could have addressed the issues of timeliness of trial settings and extension orders on its own, but did not do so. See In re M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799, 802 (Tex.2008) (noting that where a parental termination statute gives the trial court authority to grant a deadline extension, the trial court should adhere to the statute's instruction). Or, the trial court could have denied the parties' agreed motion for continuance as to the December trial date. The one person who did not have a legal burden to tell the trial court the means by which to terminate her parental rights and who should not be penalized by the doctrines of invited error or estoppel for not doing so, is K.W. The dissents charge that our holding, in effect, makes the deadlines non-waivable. That is wrong. We hold only that the statute specifies the requirements for a party to waive the deadlines, K.W. did not waive them as the statute provides she could, and this record does not show that K.W. otherwise waived them. [9] TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.402(b). The dissents also accuse the Court of giving no thought to the best interests of the children. That also is wrong. The members of this Court recognize the significance of this proceeding to the lives of the children involvedanyone would. But as noted above, it is the Legislature, not the judiciary, that has enacted the Family Code and given the Department the right to intrude into family relationships. And it is the Legislature that has placed limits and restrictions on how the Department can conduct its intrusions. As appellate judges, we cannot ignore or misconstrue statutory language on the basis that in a particular case we as individuals might disagree with the outcome dictated by the policy choices made and embodied in legislation. See McIntyre, 109 S.W.3d at 748; RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex.1985) (noting that courts must be willing to take statutes as they find them, giving true and fair effect to all provisions of the statutes). By our holding, we adhere to the Legislature's policy decisions as reflected in the statute, not to our own individual senses of how this case should turn out based on a mandamus record that does not even contain a statement of facts from the trial. The dissents further decry the Court's decision to deny relief to the Department because there is no evidence that K.W.'s situation has changed and that as far as this Court knows, the children are going back to the same living conditions that necessitated emergency intervention to begin with. Justice Hecht also would answer the question of whether the Department can refile the same suit, retain custody of the children, and continue its quest to terminate K.W.'s parental rights. Both positions are unwarranted. As to the first charge, this is a mandamus proceeding. The record before us does not contain any discovery or a statement of facts from the trial. Evaluation of (1) whether the mother's situation has changed, and (2) the living conditions into which the children will go if they are returned to the mother are manifestly factual determinations based on weighing and assessing the evidence. Not only do we not have a record on which to fairly make those types of decisions, even if we did, it is not this Court's business to be making factual determinations in mandamus proceedings. See In re Meador, 968 S.W.2d 346, 354 (Tex.1998). Further, the argument assumes the children will be returned to the mother with no further action by the Department and no further review by the trial court. These assumptions are not based on anything in the record before us. At oral argument, counsel for K.W. stated his opinion that the Department could refile the case and expected it to do so. Counsel for the Department did not dispute that argument. As to the issue of whether the Department can refile the same suit, retain custody of the children, and continue as before to seek termination of K.W.'s parental rights, the question simply is not before us. We recognize that courts of appeals have not been unanimous in their decisions on the matter and the issue is important. But that does not justify our addressing it when it has not been preserved, briefed, or presented as an issue, and when no relief has been requested based on its resolution. See In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 70 (Tex.2005).