In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00046-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.F., A CHILD 

 

No. 07-16-00047-CV 

 

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

 

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court 

Deaf Smith County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. DR-05H-132A & DR-10K-147A, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

 

May 12, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, S.P.,

1

attempts to appeal orders terminating her parental rights to her 

children, A.M.F. and A.L.P.A. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction and 

because S.P. failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring a written explanation for 

her late notices of appeal.

On October 14, 2015, the associate judge signed two orders terminating S.P.’s 

parental rights in suits brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services.

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
2

S.P. timely requested a de novo hearing before the referring court in both cases. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.015(a) (West Supp. 2015). The de novo hearing was set for 

December 21. At the commencement of the hearing, however, S.P. withdrew her 

requests for de novo review and asked the trial court to affirm the associate judge’s 

rulings. On January 7, 2016, the trial court signed orders confirming the associate 

judge’s orders of termination.

In a child protection case, the proposed order or judgment of the associate judge 

becomes the order or judgment of the referring court by operation of law without 

ratification by the referring court if a request for a de novo hearing is not timely filed or 

the right to a de novo hearing is waived. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.2041(a) (West 

2014). Although S.P. timely requested a de novo hearing, she withdrew her requests

on December 21, waiving her right to de novo review by the referring court. 

Accordingly, the associate judge’s orders of termination became the orders of the 

referring court on December 21 by operation of law. See id.; In re G.B. II, No. 10-10-

00244-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9471, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 24, 2010, order)

(holding that an associate judge’s termination order became the final order of the 

referring court on the date the appellant expressly waived the right to a de novo hearing

under Section 201.2041(a)). Ratification of the orders by the referring court was 

unnecessary, and the appellate timetables began to run on December 21. 

Consequently, S.P.’s notices of appeal were due by January 11, 2016. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.1(b). S.P. filed her notices of appeal on January 21, but did not file a 

motion requesting an extension of time to file the notices of appeal. As such, S.P.’s 
3

notices of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. See Verburgt v. Dorner,

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, the court may extend the time to 

file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline expires, the appellant files the 

notice of appeal along with a motion requesting an extension that reasonably explains 

the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). Although a motion for 

extension is implied when the appellant tenders a notice of appeal within 15 days after 

the notice deadline, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need 

for an extension. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 

S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998).

Because S.P. filed her notices of appeal within 15 days after the deadline, a 

motion for extension was implied. However, by letter dated April 26, 2016, the Court 

ordered S.P. to file a written response by May 9 explaining why her notices of appeal 

were filed late. The Court also informed S.P. that failure to comply with the Court’s 

directive would result in dismissal of her appeals. S.P. did not respond to the Court’s 

directive for a written explanation.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction and because S.P. 

failed to comply with a court order. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice