From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re of

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Apr 7, 2016
No. 11-16-00055-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 7, 2016)

Opinion

No. 11-16-00055-CV

04-07-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF H.R.T. AND A.D.T., CHILDREN


On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C46151

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After an appeal was perfected by the parents whose parental rights were terminated, the intervenor/maternal grandmother attempted to appeal from the same order of termination. An appeal in a parental termination case is an accelerated appeal. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(a) (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4. The trial court signed the order of termination on February 9, 2016. The mother and the father each filed a timely notice of appeal. The maternal grandmother filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2016. Because this is an accelerated appeal, a notice of appeal was due within twenty days after the order was signed, which would have made it due on February 29, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Even with the fifteen-day extension allowed by TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, the time for filing the notice of appeal in this case had already expired when the maternal grandmother filed her notice of appeal. In a letter dated March 24, 2016, we informed the maternal grandmother that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b). We requested that she respond and show grounds to continue her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

In response to this court's letter, the maternal grandmother asserts that she timely filed her notice of appeal within the 90-day period permitted by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). We disagree. Because this is an appeal in a parental termination case, it is governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(a). In an accelerated appeal, the filing of a motion for new trial does not extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b). The maternal grandmother's notice of appeal was, therefore, not filed in a timely manner, and we are without authority to consider her appeal. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 2, we are prohibited from suspending the Rules of Appellate Procedure "to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case." In accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), we dismiss the portion of this appeal filed by the maternal grandmother.

This appeal is dismissed in part for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed with respect to the maternal grandmother only; the appeal remains active with respect to the mother and the father. April 7, 2016

PER CURIAM Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.


Summaries of

In re of

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Apr 7, 2016
No. 11-16-00055-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 7, 2016)
Case details for

In re of

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF H.R.T. AND A.D.T., CHILDREN

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 7, 2016

Citations

No. 11-16-00055-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 7, 2016)