I know how many people are stirred to talk about CPS cases by these postings, but have any of you out there looked at the changes to when a court can extend coming 9/1/05 ?

Specifically - it looks to me that it applies to all cases beginning 9/1 and not just cases filed after 9/1. Does anyone see it different?

I couldn't find anything in the bill about the effective date of the changes to 263.401. I just found the general effective date provision: "SECTION 5.02. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005."

This issue sort of came up in In re J.B.W.,
99 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). However, the effective date provison for that round of changes to sec. 263.401 was much clearer.

Applying sec. 263.401 to any case pending in the trial court on Sept. 1, 2005 would seem to be consistent with the way changes to appellate rules are given effect. Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tex.App. -- Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd).

The following passage from Bergman about the appicability of a statutory amendment seems helpful:

"Question does arise, however, regarding whether the amendment to § 113.082(a) applies to the case at bar. Indeed, it is clear that the suit was filed long before September 1, 2003, the effective date of the amendment. So too is it recognized that statutes and their amendments generally have prospective effect; that is, the amendments do not normally operate retroactively. Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 219 (Tex.2002). Yet, that is not true when the statute or amendment is procedural or remedial in nature. Id. Furthermore, a change that affects the power of the court to act is one involving procedure. Id. at 220 (holding jurisdictional statutes to be procedural because they "speak to the court's power rather than to the parties' rights or obligations"). Next, it would seem that an amendment vesting the trial court with the "discretion" to make a particular ruling would be of that ilk. This is so because the amendment affects the power of the court to act over a given matter as opposed to the rights or obligations of the parties. In other words, it establishes not only the parameters within which the trial court must make its decision but also the standard of review we utilize in determining whether the decision was correct. And, because it does, we conclude that the amendment to [sec] 113.082(a) is both procedural and applicable to the appeal before us."

Bergman v. Bergman Davison Webster Charitable Trust, 2004 WL 24968 at *1 (Tex.App. -- Amarillo January 2, 2004).