Opinion
No. 10-07-00086-CV
Opinion delivered and filed August 15, 2007.
Appeal from the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas, Trial Court No. 05-07-17,283-CV.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA (Justice VANCE concurs in the judgment).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed a petition for termination of the parental rights of T.F. (mother) and H.R.F. (father) as to their child, T.R.F. On January 18, 2007, a jury determined that the parent-child relationship between the parents and the child should be terminated. The trial court signed the final order of termination on February 28, 2007. Within days of the jury's verdict, and over 30 days prior to the rendition of the final order, the trial court appointed different appellate counsel for T.F. and H.R.F. Both parents filed separate notices of appeal. We affirmed the trial court's judgment as to T.F. and severed her appeal from this appeal number, 10-07-00086-CV. See In the Interest of T.R.F., No. 10-07-00200-CV (Tex.App.-Waco June 27, 2007, no pet. h.).
We now review H.R.F.'s appeal. Because H.R.F.'s first two issues were not specifically presented in a timely filed statement of points and because the statute does not require a more explicit finding than "extraordinary circumstances" for an extension of the dismissal date, we affirm the trial court's judgment as to H.R.F.
H.R.F. complains in his first two issues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it did not dismiss the termination suit because it did not render a final order on or before the final dismissal date and did not set a final hearing on a date that would allow the court to render a final order before the required date of dismissal. The Texas Family Code requires an appellant of a state-initiated termination order to file with the trial court, no later than 15 days after the final order is signed, a statement of points on which the appellant intends to appeal. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). We, as the "appellate court[,] may not consider any issue that was not specifically presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of points. . . ." Id. § 263.405(i); In the Interest of E.A.R., 201 S.W.3d 813 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.). H.R.F. timely filed a statement of points, but neither issue was specifically presented to the trial court in that statement of points. Therefore, issues one and two are dismissed. See In the Interest of E.A.R, 201 S.W.3d 813, 814 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.).
H.R.F.'s third issue has two parts. In the first part, H.R.F. complains that "The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion in failing to dismiss this sui (sic), after one year, for not rendering a final order,. . . ." The first part of this issue was not specifically presented to the trial court in H.R.F.'s statement of points and is dismissed. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(i) Vernon Supp. 2006); see In the Interest of E.A.R, 201 S.W.3d 813, 814 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.).
In the second part of the issue, H.R.F. contends the trial court "abused its discretion in extending the dismissal date when no evidence existed supporting a finding of extraordinary circumstances." H.R.F. acknowledges that within the Permanency Hearing Order of June 12, 2006, the trial court rendered an order retaining the case on the court's docket. In this order, the court found that extraordinary circumstances necessitated the child remaining in the temporary managing conservatorship of the Department. H.R.F.'s sole complaint is that the trial court did not clarify what those extraordinary circumstances might be. H.R.F. provides no authority for the proposition that the trial court must explain more than what was stated in the order. The statute does not require a more explicit finding. See Garcia v. Tex. Dep't of Protective Regulatory Servs., No. 03-02-00745-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5316, *4 (Tex.App.-Austin June 26, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). The second portion of H.R.F.'s third issue is overruled.
Having overruled the portion of the issue properly before us, and having dismissed the remaining issues and portion of the third issue, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.