HBA-SEP C.S.H.B. 2249 77(R)BILL ANALYSIS Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 2249 By: Goodman Juvenile Justice & Family Issues 3/25/2001 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The 75th Legislature implemented "permanency legislation" that imposed a 12 month deadline with the possibility of a 180 day extension for rendering a final order in a suit filed by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (department) requesting termination of the parent-child relationship. This legislation has helped to reduce the time children spend in foster care awaiting a trial court decision. However, some provisions remain inconsistent and the permanency legislation does not provide a mechanism through which the department or another party can compel the trial court to timely set the case for final trial. Current law also does not address post-judgment appellate delays. C.S.H.B. 2249 addresses post-judgment appellate delays, corrects provisional inconsistencies, and provides a mechanism through which a party or the department can compel the trial court to timely set the case for final trial. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 2249 amends the Family Code to remove, in regard to terminating the rights of an alleged biological father who has been served with citation and has not timely filed an admission of or counterclaim for paternity, the qualification that the admission be prior to the final hearing in the suit (Sec. 161.002). The bill authorizes the court to order termination of the parent-child relationship in a suit filed by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (department) if, in addition to meeting certain other criteria primarily regarding the mental or emotional illness of the parent, the department has been the temporary or sole managing conservator of the child of the parent for at least six months preceding the date of the hearing on the termination (Sec. 161.003). If criminal charges are filed against a parent directly related to the grounds for which termination of the parent's rights are sought and the final trial in the termination suit coincides, the parent whose rights are subject to termination is authorized to request a continuance until the criminal charges are resolved and the court is authorized to grant the continuance if it is in the best interest of the child. The bill requires the court, notwithstanding any continuance to conduct status and permanency hearings as required and to comply with the one year dismissal date (Sec. 161.2011). The bill provides that a dismissal or nonsuit approved by the court is without prejudice (Sec. 161.203). The bill requires the court to set a final termination hearing on a date that allows the court to render a final order before the date for dismissal of the suit, and any party to the suit or an attorney ad litem for the child is authorized to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the court to set the final hearing date (Sec. 263.304). The bill requires a court that elects to retain, for up to 180 days, a termination suit on the court's docket after the statutory year limit to set a final hearing on a date that allows the court to render a final order before the required date for dismissal of the suit (Sec. 263.401). The bill prohibits the parties to a suit from extending the deadlines set by the court by agreement or otherwise. A party to a suit who fails to make a timely motion to dismiss the suit or to make a motion requesting the court to render a final order before the deadline for dismissal waives the right to object to the court's failure to dismiss the suit (Sec. 263.402). The bill sets forth provisions relating to an appeal of a final order for a child under department care, and sets forth requirements for the appellate court (Sec. 263.406). EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2001. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE C.S.H.B. 2249 modifies the original bill by removing provisions regarding the termination of parental rights after the denial of a prior petition to terminate. The substitute clarifies that the court is authorized to order the termination of the parent-child relationship if the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (department) has been the temporary or sole managing conservator of the child of the parent for at least six months, rather than the six months preceding the date of the hearing (Sec.161.003). While the original prohibited a continuance granted to a parent whose rights are subject to termination and against whom criminal charges are filed that directly relate to the grounds for which termination is sought from being more than 12 months, the substitute provides that the continuance is granted until the criminal charges are resolved (Sec. 161.2011). The substitute removes the provisions from the original that specified that a court must find good cause for dismissal with prejudice and instead provides that the dismissal or nonsuit is without prejudice (Sec. 161.203). The substitute provides that an attorney ad litem for the child is authorized to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the court to set the final hearing date (Sec. 263.304). The substitute removes the provision authorizing the department, the attorney or guardian ad litem for the child, or any other party to the suit to enforce provisions regarding dismissal after one year (Sec. 263.401). The substitute removes provisions authorizing the court to issue emergency orders authorizing possession of the child by the department under certain circumstances and provisions providing that dismissal of a suit under review of placement of children under department care is without prejudice. The substitute prohibits the parties to a suit from extending the deadlines set by the court by agreement or otherwise while the original authorized the parties to agree to extend the deadlines (Sec. 263.402). The substitute provides that an appellant who appeals the court's order denying the appellant's claim of indigence or the court's finding that the appeal is frivolous is not required to provide advanced payment at the time of filing (Sec. 263.405).