Background
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the mother’s parental rights to three children after her youngest child died at eight months following severe burns from being placed in hot water without medical treatment. The mother faced pending criminal charges for manslaughter and injury to a child, and a competency evaluation found her mentally incompetent to stand trial; she was committed to a mental health facility in September 2025. The trial was initially set for January 15, 2026, but the mother filed an unverified motion to continue, citing her hospitalization. The trial court granted an unopposed continuance and appointed a guardian ad litem, resetting trial for February 19, 2026.
On February 19, the mother’s counsel and guardian ad litem moved again for continuance, arguing their client remained institutionalized and discovery was incomplete. The trial court denied this motion, noting it was not in writing and verified as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251. The trial proceeded, and the court terminated parental rights based on five grounds: the mother knowingly placed children in dangerous conditions, engaged in conduct endangering their well-being, constructively abandoned them, suffered mental illness rendering her incapable of providing care, and termination was in the children’s best interest.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the mother’s sole argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her continuance motion. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251, a motion for continuance must be in writing and supported by an affidavit. When a motion fails to comply with this requirement, courts presume the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying it. The mother’s February 19 motion was oral and unverified, establishing non-compliance with this mandatory procedural rule.
The court also noted that even if the motion had been properly made, the mother failed to demonstrate prejudice from her absence. Texas law requires a party to show materiality of absent testimony to justify a continuance; mere absence is insufficient. As to the discovery claim, the mother neither identified missing evidence nor explained how she was harmed when the State declared it had filed all evidence it intended to produce. Critically, the court held that parental mental incompetency is not a prerequisite to trial under the Texas Family Code; to the contrary, mental illness may independently justify termination of parental rights.
Key Takeaways
- Motions for continuance in parental termination cases must comply with procedural rules: written form and affidavit support are mandatory, and failure to comply results in presumed non-abuse of discretion.
- A parent’s mental incompetency and commitment to a psychiatric facility do not automatically warrant delay of trial or prevent proceedings from moving forward procedurally.
- A party seeking continuance must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice from absence and specificity regarding discovery defects; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
- Appointment of a guardian ad litem for an incapacitated parent mitigates the risk of erroneous deprivation in termination proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes that strict procedural requirements govern continuance motions in parental rights termination cases, even when parents face serious mental health challenges. The ruling potentially creates a significant hurdle for vulnerable parents: mental incapacity that prevents courtroom participation may not excuse procedural defects in requesting trial delay. While the appointment of a guardian ad litem provides some due process protection, the court’s emphasis on children’s “strong interest in prompt final decision” and the “compelling government interest” in establishing stable homes reflects a policy that prioritizes expedited termination proceedings over accommodating parental incapacity.
The decision has practical implications for parents facing termination with unresolved mental competency issues. It signals that procedural compliance—not the merits of competency concerns—will control in continuance rulings, and that parents must navigate these requirements precisely or lose the opportunity to participate meaningfully in proceedings affecting their fundamental rights.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.