Background
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed J.B.B. after receiving an intake report in November 2024 that the child was born with fetal drug exposure. Mother initially entered a safety plan but stopped complying within a month. In January 2025, Mother was arrested for assault while appearing intoxicated and fled her home with the child. The trial court appointed the Department as temporary managing conservator on January 31, 2025, and ordered Mother to complete a service plan including substance abuse counseling, psychological evaluation, drug testing, and parenting classes.
Trial commenced on January 21, 2026, but Mother was unable to attend—she was on suicide watch at an Intermediate Sanction Facility and could not participate in person or by videoconference. After an initial witness testified, the trial was recessed to March 11, 2026. On that date, trial resumed, additional testimony was presented, and the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b).
The Court’s Holding
Mother appealed on a single issue: whether the trial court lost jurisdiction because it failed to commence trial or obtain an extension before the statutory deadline of February 2, 2026—one year after the Department’s appointment as temporary managing conservator on January 31, 2025. Texas Family Code § 263.401(a) requires trial to commence or an extension to be granted within this window, or the court loses jurisdiction automatically.
The Texas 13th Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial on the merits commenced on January 21, 2026, before the deadline. The court applied established factors for determining trial commencement: whether parties announced ready, preliminary matters were addressed, witnesses were sworn, testimony was given, and exhibits were admitted. The court noted the trial court’s amended order explicitly recited that the case was heard on January 21, 2026 and March 11, 2026. Because trial commenced with witness testimony before February 2, the trial court retained jurisdiction despite the subsequent recess and Mother’s inability to participate.
Key Takeaways
- Trial on the merits commences when procedural milestones occur—parties announce ready, witnesses are sworn and testify, and preliminary matters are addressed—not merely when a trial date is set.
- A defendant’s absence or inability to participate due to confinement does not prevent trial commencement or defeat jurisdictional deadlines once trial procedures have begun.
- Texas Family Code § 263.401(a)’s one-year deadline is strict; once trial commences before the deadline, a subsequent recess or continuance does not restart the clock or strip the trial court of jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This ruling protects the finality and enforceability of child welfare proceedings by clarifying when trial commences for purposes of statutory jurisdiction deadlines. Family courts often face delays in parental termination cases due to logistics, confinement, or other obstacles; this decision prevents appellants from weaponizing such delays to vacate judgments on jurisdictional grounds after trial has substantively begun. The holding provides certainty that swearing in a witness and taking testimony establishes trial commencement, even if trial is recessed before completion.
For practitioners, the decision underscores that trial dates and procedural posture matter critically in child welfare litigation. Once a trial date arrives and the requisite procedural steps occur—parties announce ready, witnesses are sworn and provide testimony—jurisdictional deadlines are satisfied, and subsequent continuances or adjournments do not jeopardize the court’s authority to render final judgment on the merits.