in the Interest of P.A.D., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of P.A.D., a Child

DecidedJuly 19, 2018

Docket11-18-00160-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of P.A.D., a Child (in the Interest of P.A.D., 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 P.A.D., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed July 19, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-18-00160-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF P.A.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Coleman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV06352

MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 27, 2018, appellate counsel for P.A.D.’s parents filed a notice of appeal relating to the order of termination of parental rights that was signed by the trial court on April 19, 2018. When the appeal was docketed in this court, the clerk of this court notified the parties that it appeared to this court that the notice of appeal was not timely filed, and we requested that Appellants’ counsel respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellants’ counsel has not responded to this court’s letter. The documents on file in this appeal show that, on April 19, the trial court signed an order of termination that was a final, appealable order. The notice of appeal was therefore due to be filed on May 9. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (providing that, in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal, must be filed within twenty days after the date the order was signed). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until June 27—after the deadline and also after the time in which this court would be authorized to grant a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are prohibited from suspending the Rules of Appellate Procedure “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

July 19, 2018 Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.

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

Opinion filed July 19, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-18-00160-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF P.A.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Coleman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV06352

MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 27, 2018, appellate counsel for P.A.D.’s parents filed a notice of appeal relating to the order of termination of parental rights that was signed by the trial court on April 19, 2018. When the appeal was docketed in this court, the clerk of this court notified the parties that it appeared to this court that the notice of appeal was not timely filed, and we requested that Appellants’ counsel respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellants’ counsel has not responded to this court’s letter. The documents on file in this appeal show that, on April 19, the trial court signed an order of termination that was a final, appealable order. The notice of appeal was therefore due to be filed on May 9. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (providing that, in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal, must be filed within twenty days after the date the order was signed). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until June 27—after the deadline and also after the time in which this court would be authorized to grant a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are prohibited from suspending the Rules of Appellate Procedure “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

July 19, 2018 Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of P.A.D., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-pad-a-child-texapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack