From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re E. J. M.

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Jul 23, 2024
No. 01-23-00681-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2024)

Opinion

01-23-00681-CV

07-23-2024

In the Interest of E. J. M. aka E. J. M., a Child


313th District Court of Harris County Trial court case number: 2022-68548

ORDER

Peter Kelly, Judge

Appellant Donna Valverde is appealing the final judgment entered in this case on August 24, 2023. The clerk's record was filed on September 28, 2023. Appellant then filed a motion entitled "Motion to Assist Appellate Counsel with Access to the Record." Appellant's counsel asserted that she has a "pin number" for access to confidential records and has contacted both the clerk of the court and records on more than one occasion, but she has not been granted access to the records to allow counsel to designate a record or request a reporter's record. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a response to appellant's motion.

The Department presents several arguments for denial of appellant's motion. First, the Department argues that the motion should be denied because appellant's motion is vague concerning which documents are needed. The Department observes that counsel on appeal was appellant's trial counsel and filed documents and attended hearings and should know which documents and hearings are pertinent to issues appellant intends to assert on appeal.

Appellant's motion appears to indicate that appellant's counsel is unable to obtain online access to the trial court's file. As the Department observes, this may be because appellant is not a party to the adoption case. However, because appellant is appealing the trial court's order imposing sanctions against her, she is entitled to an appellate record.

The Department argues that appellant's vague request is an attempt to obtain sealed records. By statute, records concerning a child's adoption are confidential and the court may seal the file on motion of a party or on the trial court's own motion and no person is entitled to access except for good cause stated in an order by the court. See Tex. Fam. Code § 162.022. This Court does not order online access to trial court documents. To the extent appellant seeks online access to sealed documents in the trial court's file, the motion is denied.

Appellant and her counsel should be aware of which documents are relevant and have been omitted from the clerk's record. Rule 34.5(c) provides for supplementation of the clerk's record with omitted items. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). But appellant has not stated which items have been omitted from the clerk's record or that she has requested supplementation and that request was denied.

As for reporter's records, the Department asserts that appellant should know the dates of any hearings pertinent to the appeal and that her failure to state specific records she is seeking is another indication that she is seeking to obtain sealed adoption records. According to the August 24, 2023 final order, appellant and her counsel appeared at the hearing held on August 24, 2023. Rule 34.6(b)(1) requires an appellant to request in writing that the official court reporter prepare the reporter's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)(1). On September 29, 2023, court reporter Stephanie Wells filed an information sheet stating that there was "a very brief record where Attorney Daryl Longworth passed this hearing." She also stated that "Judge Thursland has instructed me not to produce or release whatever record there may be, pending the decision of the COA." The court reported noted that appellant has not requested any record and has not paid for any record. Court reporter Kim Weidenheft also filed an information sheet stating that appellant had requested the record, had not paid for the record, but requested an extension of time.

On October 2, 2023, the Court issued a notice of nonpayment to appellant stating that there was no indication in the record that appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs and that if no reporter's record was filed, appellant might be required to file a brief containing issues that do not require a reporter's record for a decision. Appellant has not responded to this notice and appellant's motion does not list which hearings she has requested and been denied. It is apparent from the information sheet filed by reporter, Stephanie Wells, that at least one hearing record was requested, which the trial court ordered the court reporter not to prepare. Without more specific information, this Court cannot determine if the reporter's record requested should have been filed.

If appellant's motion seeks to supplement the clerk's record, appellant has not provided this Court with a list of items omitted from the clerk's record and her written request to the trial court clerk for supplementation of the clerk's record with those documents. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). If appellant wishes to supplement the clerk's record with specific documents, and has not been able to do so, she must provide proof of which documents she has requested supplementation because the Court will not order supplementation without a specific list of documents.

As for the reporter's record, appellant has not provided proof of her request for specific hearing records. The Court observes that the only hearing mentioned in the final order is one held on August 24, 2023, but appellant does not state that this is the hearing record she requested and has been denied. Although the information sheet from court reporter Stephanie Wells indicates that appellant has requested at least one hearing record, and the trial court has ordered the court reporter not to file it, this Court is unable to assist appellant without more information. Appellant is entitled to the hearing record concerning the request for sanctions as that is the record upon which the appealed order of August 24, 2023 was based. But, appellant has not presented this Court with proof of what reporter's records were requested.

Accordingly, because appellant has not provided sufficient documentation, the motion for assistance with obtaining a supplemental clerk's record or reporter's record is denied. And, as previously stated, to the extent appellant requests online access to sealed documents, that request is denied.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re E. J. M.

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Jul 23, 2024
No. 01-23-00681-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2024)
Case details for

In re E. J. M.

Case Details

Full title:In the Interest of E. J. M. aka E. J. M., a Child

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Jul 23, 2024

Citations

No. 01-23-00681-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2024)