in the Interest of D. R. P. and T. W. P., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of D. R. P. and T. W. P., Children

97 S.W.3d 149, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 58, 2002 WL 15518

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 4, 2002

Docket07-01-00285-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.W.3d 149 (in the Interest of D. R. P. and T. W. P., Children) 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 D. R. P. and T. W. P., Children, 97 S.W.3d 149, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 58, 2002 WL 15518 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ON JOINT MOTION TO REMAND AND STAY APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sharon Parson, natural mother of minor children Devin Ray Parson and Tevin Wayne Parson, presents this appeal from the April 27, 2001 judgment following a jury trial terminating her parental rights to her two minor children. Appellant filed her brief on November 21, 2001. Then, on December 20, 2001, appellant and The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed a Joint Motion 1 to Remand to Trial Court and Stay Appeal Pending Trial Court Hearing and Ruling on Appellant’s Motion for New Trial. 2 Movants cite Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.1979), as support for their motion that we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for a hearing and ruling on appellant’s motion for new trial. Hensley is not controlling because that appeal challenged an alleged agreed judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a hearing on the motion for new trial pursuant to former Rule 483 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, 3 and the case was remanded to the trial court without abatement of the appeal.

*150 Concluding that the motion in its present form must be overruled, it is so ordered. However, recognizing the potential problems presented by the current rules and the difficulty encountered by the parties desiring to settle their dispute during the pendency of an appeal, we overrule the motion without prejudice to the presentation of another motion taking into consideration the matters discussed in Dunn v. Canadian Oil & Gas Services, Inc., 908 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex.App.-El Paso1995, no writ). In the absence of the submission of a new motion approved by counsel for all interested parties, the brief of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services shall be filed by February 1, 2002.

It is so ORDERED.

1

. Motion not approved by counsel for the minor children or by Alfred Vigil, Jr. or Dennis Love, whose rights were also terminated by the order.

2

. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services does not concede or acknowledge error.

3

. Rule 483 was repealed effective September 1, 1986.

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

ON JOINT MOTION TO REMAND AND STAY APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sharon Parson, natural mother of minor children Devin Ray Parson and Tevin Wayne Parson, presents this appeal from the April 27, 2001 judgment following a jury trial terminating her parental rights to her two minor children. Appellant filed her brief on November 21, 2001. Then, on December 20, 2001, appellant and The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed a Joint Motion 1 to Remand to Trial Court and Stay Appeal Pending Trial Court Hearing and Ruling on Appellant’s Motion for New Trial. 2 Movants cite Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.1979), as support for their motion that we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for a hearing and ruling on appellant’s motion for new trial. Hensley is not controlling because that appeal challenged an alleged agreed judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a hearing on the motion for new trial pursuant to former Rule 483 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, 3 and the case was remanded to the trial court without abatement of the appeal.

*150 Concluding that the motion in its present form must be overruled, it is so ordered. However, recognizing the potential problems presented by the current rules and the difficulty encountered by the parties desiring to settle their dispute during the pendency of an appeal, we overrule the motion without prejudice to the presentation of another motion taking into consideration the matters discussed in Dunn v. Canadian Oil & Gas Services, Inc., 908 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex.App.-El Paso1995, no writ). In the absence of the submission of a new motion approved by counsel for all interested parties, the brief of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services shall be filed by February 1, 2002.

It is so ORDERED.

1

. Motion not approved by counsel for the minor children or by Alfred Vigil, Jr. or Dennis Love, whose rights were also terminated by the order.

2

. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services does not concede or acknowledge error.

3

. Rule 483 was repealed effective September 1, 1986.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.W.3d 149, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 58, 2002 WL 15518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-d-r-p-and-t-w-p-children-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack