in the Interest of L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children

DecidedSeptember 22, 2016

Docket14-16-00723-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children (in the Interest of L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children) 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 L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order filed September 22, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-16-00723-CV ____________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-05822J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. The judgment was signed August 17, 2016. The notice of appeal was due within 20 days, which was September 6, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.4(a). Appellant, however, filed her notice of appeal on September 14, 2016, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before October 3, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

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

Order filed September 22, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-16-00723-CV ____________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-05822J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. The judgment was signed August 17, 2016. The notice of appeal was due within 20 days, which was September 6, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.4(a). Appellant, however, filed her notice of appeal on September 14, 2016, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before October 3, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-llg-plg-clg-children-texapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack