Summary
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother's oral motion for extension of dismissal deadline when mother produced no evidence that extraordinary circumstances necessitated continuance
Summary of this case from In re Interest of L.S.Opinion
No. 07-16-00030-CV
05-09-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF J.O., J.O., J.O., J.O., and J.O., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 106th District Court Garza County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14-11-06931; Honorable Kara Darnell, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, L.G., appeals the trial court's denial of her oral, pretrial motion to continue termination proceedings regarding her five children, J.O., J.O., J.O., J.O., and J.O. In a single issue, she asserts the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for continuance and motion to extend the termination dismissal date under section 263.401(b) of the Texas Family Code. L.G. does not appeal the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the trial court's finding in favor of termination or whether termination was in the children's best interest. We affirm.
To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we refer to them by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2014). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.401(b) (West Supp. 2015). Section 263.401(b) provides as follows:
Unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits, the court may not retain the suit on the court's docket [for more than a year] unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child remaining in the temporary conservatorship of the department and that continuing the appointment of the department as temporary managing conservator is in the best interest of the child.
We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny an extension of a termination dismissal date under section 263.401(b) based upon an abuse of discretion standard. In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied). In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, this court must decide whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). The focus is on the needs of the child, whether extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child remaining in the temporary custody of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and whether continuing that arrangement is in the best interest of the child. See § 263.401(b). See also A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d at 604. This statute exists to facilitate permanence and stability in the lives of children. In re L.J.S., 96 S.W.3d 692, 693-94 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).
Here, at the pretrial hearing, L.G.'s attorney made an oral motion asking the trial court to extend the dismissal deadline under section 263.401(b) of the Texas Family Code and for a continuance so that L.G. could continue working services. L.G. testified she could successfully complete her court-ordered services if given the opportunity to do so. She claimed the major obstacle to her success was the lack of access to reliable transportation; however, she failed to offer any evidence to support this contention. L.G. testified at the hearing regarding her understanding of the consequences should her motion be denied. There was no evidence produced at the hearing to establish either that "extraordinary circumstances" necessitated the continuance or that the continuance was in the best interest of her children. To the contrary, the evidence established that L.G. made minimal progress on her service plan in the almost twelve months that the case was pending. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, L.G.'s issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
We note that L.G. is represented by court-appointed counsel. Based upon the recent Texas Supreme Court decision, In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at *6 (Tex. April 1, 2016) (per curiam), we feel it is appropriate to call counsel's attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, including the possible filing of a petition for review. --------
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Throughout the remainder of this memorandum opinion, citations to the Texas Family Code will be simply "section ___" or "§ ___."