In the Interest of E.D., a Child v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of E.D., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of E.D., a Child v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00079-CV ___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 442nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-10169-442
Before Birdwell, Bassel, Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father,1 proceeding pro se, attempts to bring a restricted appeal of
the trial court’s “Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution.” See Tex. R. App. P. 30.
The trial court signed its order on March 4, 2025, so Father’s notice of appeal was due
September 4, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c) (“[I]n a restricted appeal, the notice of
appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment or order is signed.”).
However, Father did not file his notice of appeal until February 5, 2026, making it
untimely. See id.
To sustain a restricted appeal, the filing party must show, among other things,
that he filed his notice of appeal within six months after the judgment was signed. See
Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. 2020). This requirement is jurisdictional in
this court. Id. at 497. Because Father did not file his notice of appeal within six
months after the trial court’s order was signed, we do not have jurisdiction over his
restricted appeal. See id.; Lab’y Corp. of Am. v. Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., Inc., 16 S.W.3d
527, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction
over restricted appeal because appellant did not file notice of appeal within six
months after judgment was signed).
We notified Father of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over his
restricted appeal and warned him that we could dismiss the appeal for want of
1 In termination-of-parental-rights cases, we use aliases for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2 jurisdiction if he did not file a response showing grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Father filed a response, but it does not show grounds for
continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lab’y Corp. of Am., 16 S.W.3d at 529.
Per Curiam
Delivered: March 19, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of E.D., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ed-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp2-2026.