if the judge finds that continuing the TDPRS as temporary managing conservator is “in the best interest of the child.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.401(b); see In re Ludwig, 150 S.W.3d 819, 822 (TexApp.-Austin 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. pending]). If the judge retains the case, he “shall render an order” (i) scheduling the new dismissal date of the suit not later than the 180th day after the time described in subsection (a); (ii) making further temporary orders for the safety and welfare of the child as needed; and (ii) setting a final hearing date that allows the court to render a final order before the required date for dismissal of the suit under this subsection. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.401(b); In re Bishop, 8 S.W.3d 412, 418 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (<HOLDING>). If the trial judge “grants an extension but
holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that to grant extension judge must render extension order which must schedule new date for dismissal