Opinion
04-24-00219-CV
06-13-2024
IN RE THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-PA-01945, styled In the Interest of J.D., a Child, in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Relator, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, is the permanent managing conservator of J.D., the seventeen-year-old child who is the subject of the underlying matter pending in the trial court. Relator has been J.D.'s permanent managing conservator since June 29, 2021, when the trial court terminated the parental rights of J.D.'s parents.
On April 11, 2024, this court issued a stay of all proceedings in the underlying matter. However, the stay provides that "Respondent, Relator, or any other interested party may request from this court a temporary lift of this stay."
On June 12, 2024, Relator filed a motion for recusal in the underlying matter. That same day, Relator filed a motion to temporarily lift this court's stay order to allow the Respondent to address the motion for recusal.
However, Relator did not seek a lift of this court's stay prior to filing its motion for recusal. Accordingly, the filing of that motion violated our stay order and is void. See Oryx Cap. Int'l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("By filing its notice of non-suit and asking the trial court to sign the order of dismissal, Sage violated our stay order."); In re Helena Chem. Co., 286 S.W.3d 492, 498 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2009, orig. proceeding) ("Parties to the suit at the time the stay is imposed are notified of the stay; any actions subsequently made by such parties in the trial court are rightfully considered violations of the stay and are void as a matter of law."); In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47, 53 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (same).
Because Relator's motion for recusal is void as a matter of law, we conclude there is nothing for Respondent to address. Therefore, we DENY Relator's motion to temporarily lift the stay.
It is so ORDERED.