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

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 02-26-00032-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00032-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF O.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-738855-23

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

If an “appellant fail[s] to pay or make arrangements to pay the [trial court]

clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the appellate court may—on . . . its own

initiative—dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.” Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b); see

Est. of Schweitzer, No. 02-25-00598-CV, 2026 WL 478939, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Feb. 19, 2026, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Lilly v. Thompson, No. 02-25-

00395-CV, 2026 WL 253437, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 30, 2026, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.). And here, Appellant R.M. (Father) has not “pa[id] or ma[d]e

arrangements to pay” for the clerk’s record. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On March 6, 2026, we warned Father that we would dismiss his appeal for

want of prosecution unless, within ten days, he paid for the record and provided us

with proof of payment. See id. (stating that appellate court “must give the appellant a

reasonable opportunity to cure before dismissal”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b)

(authorizing dismissal for want of prosecution “after giving ten days’ notice to all

parties”), 44.3 (requiring appellate court to provide “a reasonable time to

correct . . . defects or irregularities” before dismissing an appeal on that basis). Father

instead responded by professing his indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b)

(recognizing exception to dismissal for nonpayment of the record if “the appellant

was entitled to proceed without payment of costs”). But Appellee A.H. (Mother)

disputed Father’s indigence, and after a hearing on the matter, the trial court found

that Father “[wa]s not indigent and ha[d] the ability to pay” for the record.

2 That was several weeks ago now. Since then, Mother has filed a motion that

again calls attention to Father’s failure to pay for the clerk’s record. Yet, Father still

has neither paid for the record nor made payment arrangements. Cf. id.

We therefore dismiss Father’s appeal for want of prosecution.1 See Tex. R.

App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also Schweitzer, 2026 WL 478939, at *1 (dismissing

appeal when appellant failed to pay for clerk’s record); Lilly, 2026 WL 253437, at *1

(same).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Delivered: May 14, 2026

1 Mother’s pending motion is denied as moot.