In the Interest of E.C.S. and R.C.S., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00063-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00063-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.C.S. AND R.C.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-528,122, Honorable Tom Brummett, Presiding

April 30, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Taylor Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Final

Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. We dismiss the untimely appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

The trial court signed the final order on December 11, 2023. Thereafter, Smith

filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 9, 2024, and a motion

for new trial on January 11, 2024. Both were untimely, however. The request for findings

was due by January 2, 2024, and the motion for new trial was due January 10, 2024. See

TEX. R. CIV. P. 296 (requiring requests for findings to be filed within twenty days after

judgment is signed); 329b(a) (requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within thirty days after judgment is signed). Because Smith’s request for findings and motion for new trial

were untimely filed, they did not operate to extend the notice of appeal deadline. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Accordingly, Smith’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days

after the final order was signed, i.e. by January 10, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Smith

filed a notice of appeal on February 9, 2024.

A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). By

letter of March 26, 2024, we notified Smith that his notice of appeal appeared untimely

and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Smith filed a

response claiming that his form statement of inability to afford payment of court costs filed

on December 7, 2023, constituted a notice of appeal. A statement of inability to pay is

not a notice of appeal and does not invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.1; Singh v. Shaghaghi, No. 01-11-00996-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5672, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2012, no pet.); Walton v. Walton, No. 05-21-

00394-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 9305, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2021, no

pet.) (mem. op.). No document attempting to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction was filed. To

interpret Smith’s statement otherwise, would generally render the filing of a notice of

appeal superfluous.

Smith’s response also indicates that he seeks to appeal the Order on Taylor Ray

Smith’s Declaration of Inability to Pay Court Costs signed by the trial court on January 31,

2024. The order denies Smith a free appellate record pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure

145. Such an order may only be challenged “by motion filed in the court of appeals with

jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment in the case.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(1).

2 Because we are without jurisdiction to review the Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-

Child Relationship, we have no authority to review Smith’s challenge to the Order on

Taylor Ray Smith’s Declaration of Inability to Pay Court Costs. See Ferero v. Guzman,

No. 01-23-00363-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6157, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Aug. 15, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding same).

Accordingly, we dismiss Smith’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

Per Curiam