Opinion
No. 04-13-00617-CV
2013-10-01
IN THE INTEREST OF T.D., ET AL, CHILDREN
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-PA-00167
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
ORDER
This is an appeal from an order terminating appellant's parental rights. Appellant Reginald Bateman has filed a pro se notice of appeal and a pro se motion for appointment of appellate counsel.
The clerk's record shows that on April 4, 2013, the trial court appointed William Delano as attorney ad litem for appellant. Section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code provides that in a suit filed by a governmental agency in which termination of the parent-child relationship is requested an attorney appointed to serve as than attorney ad litem for a parent or an alleged father serves until the earliest of (1) the date the suit is dismissed; (2) the date all appeals in relation to any final order terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived; or (3) the date the attorney is relieved of her duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court on the record. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016 (West Supp. 2012).
Nothing in the clerk's record indicates Mr. Delano was relieved of his duties or replaced by another attorney. Therefore, appellant is currently represented by counsel. Appellant's motion for appointment of appellate counsel is therefore DENIED AS MOOT.
The clerk's record also shows the trial court signed a final order terminating appellant's parental rights on June 26, 2013. Appellant's notice of appeal was therefore due to be filed on or before July 16, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on or before July 31, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until September 11, 2013. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time.
A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But "once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction." Id.; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 924-25 (Tex. 2005) (affirming dismissal of parental termination appeal when notice of appeal was untimely).
We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by October 15, 2013 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We suspend all appellate deadlines pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We also direct the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. Delano.
_______________
Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of October, 2013.
_______________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court