In the Interest of A.-R.C.E., a Child v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
Date FiledOctober 15, 2026
Docket02-26-00421-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00421-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.-R.C.E., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-758249-24
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Department of Family and Protective Services initially sought to terminate
Appellant Mother’s parental rights to A.-R.C.E. on multiple grounds under Family
Code Section 161.001(b) but ultimately asked the trial court to deny her possessory
conservatorship and to make Appellee Father the child’s sole managing conservator.
The trial court did so, and Mother appealed.
After Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, we identified a
deficiency in the clerk’s record and directed the trial court clerk to supplement it with
the trial court’s order of monitored return, which affected calculation of the
automatic-dismissal deadline and the trial court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
34.5(c)(1), (3); see also Tex. Fam. Code §§ 263.401, .403; In re J.L., No. 02-26-00377-CV,
2026 WL 2617453, at *3–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 3, 2026, pet. filed) (mem.
op.). Specifically, after the monitored-return order, the new automatic-dismissal
deadline became June 2, 2026, which is the same date on which the trial court held the
trial.1 When trial on the merits does not commence before the automatic-dismissal date,
the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold the final trial, and its subsequent order is void.
See J.L., 2026 WL 2617453, at *5; see also In re C.S., 740 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Tex. 2026)
1
The trial involved both A.-R.C.E.’s case and that of her younger sister R.E.-C.,
in trial court cause number 325-764271-25. Mother has appealed the trial court’s orders
in both cases. The appeal in R.E.-C’s case is appellate cause number 02-26-00417-CV,
and in that case we reach the same disposition.
2
(stating that if the trial court does not properly grant an extension before the
automatic-dismissal date, it automatically loses jurisdiction); In re G.X.H., 627 S.W.3d
288, 301 (Tex. 2021) (stating that a trial court’s failure to timely extend the
automatic-dismissal date before that date passes is jurisdictional). See generally Tex. Fam.
Code §§ 263.401(c) (stating that if trial on the merits does not commence before the
dismissal date, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the suit is terminated and the suit is
automatically dismissed without a court order), .403(b)(2) (requiring new dismissal date
not later than the 180th day after the monitored-return temporary order is rendered
“unless a trial on the merits has commenced”).
On September 16, 2026, we notified the parties of our concern that we might
lack jurisdiction over the appeal.2 We asked Mother’s counsel or any party desiring to
continue the appeal to file with the court, on or before Monday, September 28, 2026, a
response explaining how the underlying suit had not been automatically dismissed. We
have received no response.
2
See C.S., 740 S.W.3d at 450 (explaining that a court’s first duty is to ensure that
its jurisdiction exists, that a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction, and that—on appeal—a superior court always has jurisdiction to assess the
jurisdiction of a lower court). In C.S., the supreme court stated, “In light of [Section
263.401’s] jurisdictional command, a case that proceeds beyond the automatic-dismissal
date should prompt the court and all parties to carefully ensure that the court’s
jurisdiction remains secure.” Id. at 452 (“March 11 was the day the court would lose
jurisdiction—its power over the case—unless it invoked [Section] 263.401(a)’s narrow
exception to automatic dismissal before that date.”).
3
The record reflects that the trial court lost jurisdiction by operation of law.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); C.S., 740 S.W.3d at 455; J.L., 2026 WL 2617453,
at *5.
/s/ Mike Wallach
Mike Wallach
Justice
Delivered: October 15, 2026
4