Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved after receiving a referral concerning Mother’s mental health and ability to protect and care for T.S.L. The Department could not locate Father during its investigation and petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in April 2024.
Mother completed her services, demonstrated that she could provide a safe and loving home, and received the child through a monitored return. The Department continued pursuing termination against Father, who had been incarcerated throughout the case. After a January 2026 bench trial, the trial court named Mother sole managing conservator and terminated Father’s rights under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(3) for failing to acknowledge paternity, with alternative findings under sections 161.001(b)(1)(E), (L), and (P). It also found termination was in the child’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Father’s oral request for a continuance. His “not ready” announcement was neither written nor verified and was unsupported by an affidavit, as Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 generally requires. The trial court also reasonably considered the child’s need for permanency and the case’s approaching statutory dismissal deadline; granting a continuance would have caused the court to lose jurisdiction.
The court declined to review Father’s challenge to the sufficiency of the best-interest evidence. Father did not challenge the independent ground that, as an alleged father of a child under one year old when the termination petition was filed, he had not registered with the paternity registry or otherwise acknowledged paternity. Because termination under section 161.002(b)(3) does not require a best-interest finding, the unchallenged ground required affirmance.
Key Takeaways
- An oral, unverified continuance request unsupported by an affidavit does not satisfy Rule 251 and is presumptively denied within the trial court’s discretion.
- A child’s need for permanency and an imminent mandatory dismissal date may support denying a continuance in a parental-termination proceeding.
- An appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting termination; failure to contest termination under section 161.002(b)(3) permits affirmance without reviewing a best-interest challenge.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the importance of preserving continuance requests in the form required by Texas procedure, particularly in child-welfare cases governed by strict jurisdictional deadlines. An informal “not ready” announcement may be insufficient even when the parent seeks additional time to complete services.
It also illustrates a decisive appellate briefing rule: challenging the best-interest finding will not disturb a termination order when an independent statutory ground remains unchallenged. Counsel must address every ground capable of sustaining the judgment.