in the Interest of A. C. G.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 18, 2013
Docket05-13-00733-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of A. C. G. (in the Interest of A. C. G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in the Interest of A. C. G., (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 18, 2013

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00733-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.G., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-08005-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers On April 25, 2012, the Office of the Attorney General filed an original petition in suit

affecting the parent-child relationship, asserting A.C.G.’s Mother and Father were separated and

seeking orders regarding conservatorship and support of A.C.G. The trial court signed a default

order on April 3, 2013, finding Father was obligated to provide support for A.C.G. The order,

however, did not appoint a managing conservator. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.005 (West

2008) (providing that “[i]n a suit, . . . [i]f the parents are or will be separated, the court shall

appoint at least one managing conservator.”). Father appealed from the order. Because the order

did not appear to dispose of all the claims, we directed Father to file a letter brief addressing our

jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)

(subject to few, mostly statutory exceptions, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals

from final judgments, that is, judgments disposing of all parties and claims in record). More than ten days have lapsed since Father was directed to file the letter brief, and Father has not

responded or otherwise communicated with the Court.

Because the complained-of order did not dispose of all the issues, it is not final and does

not invoke our jurisdiction. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.005; Lehman, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE

130733F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF A. C. G., JR., A On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District CHILD Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-08005-R. No. 05-13-00733-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Justices Moseley and Bridges participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellees Shykeeda Simmons and the Office of the Attorney General recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Anthony Glosson.

Judgment entered this 18th day of July, 2013.

–3–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Interest of A. C. G., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-a-c-g-texapp-2013.