in the Interest of G.G., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of G.G., a Child

DecidedFebruary 10, 2021

Docket04-20-00560-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of G.G., a Child (in the Interest of G.G., 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.

Bluebook

in the Interest of G.G., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 10, 2021

No. 04-20-00560-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.G., A CHILD

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CVW001904-C1 Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 21, 2020, the trial court signed a final order granting Dad’s petition, designating him sole managing conservator, and ordering Mom to pay child support. Subsequently, Mom retained counsel to represent her in the trial court. On June 17, 2020, Mom’s counsel filed a Motion for New Trial. A hearing on the motion was set for July 20, 2020, but the clerk’s record contains no subsequent record of the hearing or signed order on the motion for new trial. Instead, Appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal on November 16, 2020. In it, she complained that she was not represented by counsel at the final custody hearing, and the ruling should be reversed. Restricted appeals are limited to cases in which the appellant shows the following: (1) she filed the notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment or order appealed from was signed; (2) she was a party to the underlying suit; (3) she did not timely file a post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or notice of appeal; (4) she did not participate, either in person or through counsel, in the actual trial of the case; and (5) the error complained of must be apparent from the face of the record. Giron v. Gonzalez, 247 S.W.3d 302, 305 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30; Norman Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997)). Here, the record shows Mom filed a timely post-judgment motion. See id. Therefore, we ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If Appellant does not show cause in writing within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

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

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 10, 2021

No. 04-20-00560-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.G., A CHILD

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CVW001904-C1 Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 21, 2020, the trial court signed a final order granting Dad’s petition, designating him sole managing conservator, and ordering Mom to pay child support. Subsequently, Mom retained counsel to represent her in the trial court. On June 17, 2020, Mom’s counsel filed a Motion for New Trial. A hearing on the motion was set for July 20, 2020, but the clerk’s record contains no subsequent record of the hearing or signed order on the motion for new trial. Instead, Appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal on November 16, 2020. In it, she complained that she was not represented by counsel at the final custody hearing, and the ruling should be reversed. Restricted appeals are limited to cases in which the appellant shows the following: (1) she filed the notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment or order appealed from was signed; (2) she was a party to the underlying suit; (3) she did not timely file a post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or notice of appeal; (4) she did not participate, either in person or through counsel, in the actual trial of the case; and (5) the error complained of must be apparent from the face of the record. Giron v. Gonzalez, 247 S.W.3d 302, 305 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30; Norman Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997)). Here, the record shows Mom filed a timely post-judgment motion. See id. Therefore, we ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If Appellant does not show cause in writing within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of G.G., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-gg-a-child-texapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack