No continuance, no judgment

While In the Interest of Z.A. involved an issue unique to family law, the relevant facts are instructive about when the denial of a continuance can create reversible error: “Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that E.S.S. [the ‘alleged father’ was indigent and without transportation. Further, he was operating under the faulty assumption that testing would be scheduled in Sherman when he moved there. There was no testing facility in Sherman, however, and the caseworker did not inform him of this fact. And, as of the hearing date, E.S.S. was incarcerated in the Grayson County Jail. Although there is evidence the Department made some attempt to schedule a third appointment at the jail, there is no evidence as to why that did not happen. His attendance at a third appointment would have essentially been assured had it been scheduled to take place at the Grayson County Jail. When E.S.S. presented his motion, he asked the trial court to schedule the genetic testing before terminating his parental rights.” No. 05-21-00126-CV (Aug. 6, 2021) (mem. op.).