in the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman

DecidedJuly 9, 2009

Docket14-07-01022-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman (in the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman) 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 Matter of Jo Ann Ortman, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-07-01022-CV

In the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 34731

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for a protective order filed by a mother on behalf of her then-juvenile daughter. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 7A.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Because the daughter is now over 17, we asked the parties to file letter briefs addressing the issue of standing under the controlling statute. See id. (providing that a parent may file an application for a protective order on behalf of a child younger than 17). The parties= responses do not demonstrate that the mother has standing to prosecute this appeal.

Where, as here, standing is conferred legislatively, the statute provides the framework for a standing analysis. See Tex. Dep=t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861B62 (Tex. 2001); Mazon Assoc., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 195 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Tex. App.CDallas 2006, no pet.). Although the mother had standing under the statute to seek a protective order on her daughter=s behalf, she no longer does. See Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 7A.01(a). Moreover, the daughter has not sought to intervene in this appeal to assert her own rights.^{^[1]} Cf. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, No. 01-96-00219-CV, 1998 WL 175885, at *1 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 1998, no pet.) (op. on reh=g, not designated for publication) (concluding that mother lost standing to seek accounting of son=s trust fund when son turned 18 and son did not intervene to assert his own rights).

After thoroughly reviewing the record and briefing of the parties, we conclude that the mother no longer has standing to prosecute this appeal. Thus, this appeal, as filed, must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

^{^[1]} We note that, on the motion of a party, the appellate court may order substitution of a party if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(b).

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-07-01022-CV

In the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 34731

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for a protective order filed by a mother on behalf of her then-juvenile daughter. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 7A.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Because the daughter is now over 17, we asked the parties to file letter briefs addressing the issue of standing under the controlling statute. See id. (providing that a parent may file an application for a protective order on behalf of a child younger than 17). The parties= responses do not demonstrate that the mother has standing to prosecute this appeal.

Where, as here, standing is conferred legislatively, the statute provides the framework for a standing analysis. See Tex. Dep=t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861B62 (Tex. 2001); Mazon Assoc., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 195 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Tex. App.CDallas 2006, no pet.). Although the mother had standing under the statute to seek a protective order on her daughter=s behalf, she no longer does. See Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 7A.01(a). Moreover, the daughter has not sought to intervene in this appeal to assert her own rights.^{^[1]} Cf. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, No. 01-96-00219-CV, 1998 WL 175885, at *1 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 1998, no pet.) (op. on reh=g, not designated for publication) (concluding that mother lost standing to seek accounting of son=s trust fund when son turned 18 and son did not intervene to assert his own rights).

After thoroughly reviewing the record and briefing of the parties, we conclude that the mother no longer has standing to prosecute this appeal. Thus, this appeal, as filed, must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

^{^[1]} We note that, on the motion of a party, the appellate court may order substitution of a party if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Matter of Jo Ann Ortman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-jo-ann-ortman-texapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack