Opinion
No. 11-20-00026-CV
07-16-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.M.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Erath County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV09028
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of H.M.M.'s mother and father. The mother filed this appeal. On appeal, she challenges the trial court's decision not to postpone the final hearing on termination. We affirm the trial court's order.
Because Appellant asserts in her sole issue that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request for more time to comply with her service plan, we do not set out in detail the evidence in support of termination. The trial court terminated Appellant's parental rights based upon four findings related to Appellant's conduct and upon a finding that termination of Appellant's rights would be in the best interest of her child. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (b)(2). (West Supp. 2019).
At the beginning of the final hearing on termination, Appellant's counsel announced ready for trial. That hearing was held less than one week prior to the automatic dismissal date provided for in Section 263.401(a) of the Family Code. See id. § 263.401(a) (West 2019). Appellant did not file a motion for continuance or a request for an extension prior to trial. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 251 (continuance); FAM. § 263.401(b) (permitting 180-day extension). During her testimony, however, Appellant testified that she would complete her service plan if she were given more time to do so. In his closing argument, Appellant's counsel explained that Appellant was young when "this started" and that "we're just asking for more time so she can work the services." When it announced its ruling in open court, the trial court stated:
I do want to believe you, that more time would solve all this, but I will say that your track record so far doesn't really show that, and I do have to be also concerned with the best interest of your son. And I'm not -- I don't believe that extending this any longer is in his best interest . . . .
We review a trial court's decision on a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion. Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986); In re R.F. III, 423 S.W.3d 486, 490 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.). We also review a trial court's decision to grant or deny an extension pursuant to Section 263.401(b) for an abuse of discretion. In re D.W., 249 S.W.3d 625, 647 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied).
Regardless of whether Appellant's request for more time is construed as an oral motion for continuance under Rule 251 or a request for an extension under Section 263.401, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to grant a continuance or an extension. The trial court's ruling is supported by the record. The record reflects that Appellant knew that there was a possibility that her parental rights would be terminated if she did not timely complete the services required by her service plan. Appellant did not complete any of those services and had not even made a good faith effort to do so in the eight or nine months preceding the trial date. It was well within the trial court's discretion to deny any request for a continuance or an extension under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court's order of termination.
JIM R. WRIGHT
SENIOR CHIEF JUSTICE July 16, 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.