in the Interest of D.F.C., a Child
This text of in the Interest of D.F.C., a Child (in the Interest of D.F.C., a Child) 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.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00358-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF D.F.C., A CHILD
From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D13-22170-CV
ORDER
On September 26, 2014, Rebecca A. Gonzales, with the benefit of counsel, entered
into a settlement agreement wherein she agreed to relinquish her parental rights to
D.F.C. On October 7, 2014, the trial court signed an order terminating Gonzales’s
parental rights to D.F.C.
On the same day as the order of termination was signed, Gonzales filed one
document and two days later filed another document. In both, she complained about
the settlement agreement, the process, and the termination order, including a complaint
that the trial court judge was disqualified from hearing the termination proceeding and
from signing the order. She then filed, on November 19, 2014, a document entitled
“Notice of Appeal” and another document entitled “Request for Extention for Notice to File Appeal.” In those documents, Gonzales noted that she is not an attorney and
meant by the documents filed on October 7 and October 9, 2014 to invoke her right to
appeal the trial court’s order of termination.
Given what was said in the October 7 and October 9 documents and the timing
of those documents being filed, we find those documents evidence an intent by
Gonzales to appeal the trial court’s order of termination. Therefore, they are considered
a timely filed notice of appeal to this Court. Further, we consider the notice of appeal
filed on November 19, 2014, although not denominated as such, to be an “amended”
notice of appeal.
Accordingly, Gonzales’s notice of appeal was timely filed on October 7, 2014 and
her motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed as moot. Further,
we abate this appeal to the trial court to determine if Gonzales is indigent, thus
requiring the appointment of counsel on appeal. A determination of indigence must be
made within 14 days from the date of this order and a supplemental clerk’s record
containing the trial court’s determination and appointment of counsel, if needed, must
be filed with this Court within 21 days from the date of this order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed December 11, 2014
In the Interest of D.F.C. Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of D.F.C., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dfc-a-child-texapp-2014.