In the Interest of G.H., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00832-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 10, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00832-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-30001-2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Miskel Appellants appeal from the trial court’s May 21, 2024 judgment terminating

their parental rights. Father filed a motion for new trial on May 30 and Mother filed

a motion for new trial on June 4. However, appellants delayed filing their notices of

appeal until after the trial court conducted a motion for new trial hearing. Father

filed a notice of appeal on July 11 and Mother filed a notice of appeal on July 15.

Because the notices of appeal were untimely, we questioned our jurisdiction and

requested the parties to file letter briefs addressing our concern.

Appeals in parental termination cases are accelerated. See TEX. R. APP. P.

28.4(a)(1). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal is due within twenty days of the date of judgment or, with an extension motion, within fifteen days of the

deadline. See id. 26.1(b), 26.3. Filing a post-judgment motion or request for

findings of fact does not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. See id.

28.1(b).

In their separate letter briefs, appellants admit the notices of appeal were

untimely. Mother asserts that her counsel was not served with the proposed

judgment before it was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(a) (requiring service on all

parties of application for an order). In his letter brief,1 Father asserts that we “should

invoke jurisdiction and not penalize the parents due to the ineffective assistance of

counsel” for failing to file timely notices of appeal. Father also asserts that we

should construe his notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and address

whether the trial court’s judgment is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

because it was signed more than ninety days after the trial commenced.2 See TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.4011(a) (providing trial court shall render a final order

within ninety days after date trial commences). Without a timely filed notice of

appeal, however, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of appellants’ arguments,

1 The trial court signed an order appointing appellate counsel for Father on July 24, 2024, after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.

2 We have held that the failure of the trial court to rule within the ninety-day period does not deprive it of jurisdiction. See Int. of G.L.J., No. 05-23-01296-CV, 2024 WL 2513311, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 24, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). –2– including the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d

755, 757-58 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.).

Appellants’ notices of appeal were due June 10, 2024 or, with an extension

motion, June 25, 2024. See id. 26.1(b), 26.3. The notices of appeal filed on July 11

and July 15 are untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL 240832f.p05 JUSTICE

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF G.H., A On Appeal from the 199th Judicial CHILD District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-30001- No. 05-24-00832-CV 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. Justices Smith and Breedlove participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 10th day of October, 2024.

–4–