concluding that because the docket notation lacked a new dismissal date the extension order was invalid
How later courts described this case
- concluding that because the docket notation lacked a new dismissal date the extension order was invalid
- concluding an extension order is invalid if a new dismissal deadline is not set
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the final order by virtue of the Gunters’ petition seeking termination *185 of parental rights. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court lost jurisdiction of TDPRS’s suit seeking termination. Accordingly, I file this concurring opinion.
The trial court signed an order appointing TDPRS temporary managing conservator of C.V.G. on September 8, 1999. The initial deadline for dismissing the case was September 11, 2000. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 268.401 (a) (Vernon 2002). The issue presented is whether, prior to September 11, 2000, the trial court rendered an order that extended its jurisdiction over the case until February 24, 2001, thus resulting in the February 19, 2001 judgment being entered while the trial court still had jurisdiction over TDPRS’s suit.
For suits affecting the parent-child relationship, the Legislature has provided that rendition of an order may be accomplished as follows:
“Render” means the pronouncement by a judge of the court’s ruling on a matter. The pronouncement may be made orally in the presence of the court reporter or in writing, including on the court’s docket sheet or by a separate written instrument.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 101.026 (Vernon 2002). Thus, contrary to the general rule in civil cases, a docket notation standing alone constitutes rendition of judgment in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. See In re Ruiz, 16 S.W.Bd 921, 924 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, orig. proceeding).
The record in the present case shows that the final hearing was originally set for July 26, 2000. On that date, the parties appeared in court and TDPRS requested, by motion, an extension of the September 11, 2000 dismissal deadline. The trial court, on July 26, 2000, by docket entry, rendered an order continuing the final hearing to November 18, 2000, and granting the motion to extend the dismissal date. Although we do not have a record of the oral pronouncement from the bench on July 26, 2000, we do have the following: we know that the trial court granted a motion for extension of the dismissal date; we have the docket entry rendering an extension of the dismissal date; and we have a signed order dated November 13, 2000 reciting that on July 26, 2000 the court considered the motion for extension of the dismissal date and stating the extended dismissal date to be February 24, 2001. Again, the signed order was not necessary to extend the dismissal date; the docket entry granting the motion to extend the dismissal date was sufficient. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 101.026 (Vernon 2002). Accordingly, on February 19, 2001, the trial court had jurisdiction to render the final order in this case, granting the relief sought both by TDPRS and the Gun-ters. I agree we should overrule Garcia’s sole point of error and affirm the judgment.