Pr e vio us ly , w he n d e nyinga pp e lle e ’s mot ion

to d ism iss fo r w a nt o f j ur isd ic tio n, we he ld 1 that this Court has j urisdiction in this matter. The Department of Family and Protec tive Service s and the attorne y

ad litem for the c hildren re quest in their brief s that we re visit our or der holding that the state me nt o f p oin ts o n a pp e a l se rved to in vo ke thi s Co ur t’ s juri sd ic tio n. We c on c lud e d th a t, althoug h Coey

did not t imely

file a doc ument sty led “notice of appe al,” he filed his statement of points on appeal within the t ime period for filing a motion for extension of tim e to file a notice of acc eler ated a

ppeal. Unde r the pa

rticular pr ocedur al circ umstan ce s of this case , which included a filing of a notice of

appe al and a formal motion to ex tend time to file appe al within the district court’s ple nary

power , we c oncluded that the sta tement of points on appea l was sufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdi ction. We have c onsidered the arguments raised on appea l and ar e satisfied tha t, on the particula r fa c ts p re se nte d b y

thi s c a se , th is C ou rt

ha s juri sd ic tio n o ve r t

his a pp e a l. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00679- CV

M ike Co e y, App e lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. FM 4011 62, H ONO RAB LE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Mike Coey appea ls f

rom a decr ee terminating his pa renta l r ights. Be cause he did not prese rve a

ny issues for re view b y ap p ea l , we affirm the f inal decr ee of

termination and

conser vatorship. 12 The district cour

t signe d the decr ee terminating Coey ’s pare ntal rig hts on A ug ust 8, 2005. Coey

filed a state ment of points on appea l on September 7, 2005, outsi de the f ifteen- day p e r io d f o r f il in g s u c h d o c uments. See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(b) (West Supp. 2005). Coey ’ s u n ti me ly f

il in g o f h is s tate me n t o f p o in ts o n a p p e a l r e qu ir e s th a t w e r e s o lv e th e a p p e a l on

a na rr ow , s ta tut or ily

mand a te d ba sis wi tho ut a dd re ssi ng the me ri ts of a ny

of the iss ue s h e a tte mpt s to raise by

his brief on a

ppeal or otherwise. Th e statut e g ov e rn inga

pp e a ls f ro m f inal ord ers in s uit s a ff

e c tin g the pa

re nt- c hil d rela tionship conce rning children in the D epar tment’s car e is dispositi ve. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2 63 .4 05 . T he F a mil y

Cod e pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p a rt a s f oll ow s:
Th e a pp e lla te c ou rt may no t con sid e r an y iss ue that w a s n ot s pe c if ic a lly pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ou rt

in a tim e ly fi le d sta te me nt of

the po int s o n w hic h th e pa rt y int e nd s to a pp e a l or in a state me nt co mbi ne d with a mot ion fo r ne w tri a l. F or purp os e s o f t his subsection, a c laim that a judicial dec ision is contrary t o t h e evidence or that the evidenc e is fac tually

or leg ally insufficient is not suf

ficiently specific to preser ve an iss ue fo r a

pp e a l.

Id . § 26 3. 40 5( i) ; see also In re S.E. , N o . 0 4

- 0 5

- 0 0 7 5 0

- CV , 2 0 0 6 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 3 0 7 9 , a t * 3 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio, Apr. 19, 2006, no pet. h.) (in absence of statement of points on appeal, c ourt could consider

none of the issues raised on a ppeal e x cept inef

fec tive assistance of counse l). Subsection (i) became effe ctive on September 1, 2005. Act of Ma y 12, 2005, 79th L eg ., R.S., ch. 176, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. L aws 332. When ena cting this amendment, the L eg islature dete rmined that Section 263.405(I ), F amily Code, as added by this Act, applies only to an appe al of a fina l order unde r Subchapter E , Chapter 263, F amily Code, filed on or a fter the eff ective date of this Ac t. An appea l of a final order under Subchapter E , C hapter 263, Family

Code, filed bef

ore the eff

ective date of thi s Act is g overne d by the lawAlthough the event that constitutes the “filing ” of an appe al is not specified by this statute, 2 the filing of the doc ument perf ecting the appe al is, at least in this case, the ear liest possibl e date

.

3 in e ff e c t on the da te the appeal was filed , and the f ormer la w is continued in eff

ect for that pur

pose.
Id . § 2 (empha sis added)

. The it alicized lang uag e makes clea r t hat t he cr itical date to dete rmine the applicability

of subsec tion (i) is the dat e t h at the appe al was f iled, not the date of

the orde r challeng ed. Se e id

. Pursuant to section 263.405(i), we may consider the merits of only those issues that are specific ally

prese nted to the trial cour t in a tim e ly

state me nt of the po int s o n w hic h a pa rt y intends to appea l. Section 263.4 0 5 (b ) requires that, “[n] ot later than the 15th day afte r the da te a final orde r is signe d by the t rial j udg e, a party intending to appea l the order m ust file wit h the trial
court a statement of the point or points on which the pa rty intends to appea l.” B e c a us e thi s a pp e a l w a s f

ile d, a t th e e a rl ie st, on Se pte mbe r 7, 20 05 , s ub se c tio n ( i) 2 applies to this appeal. See Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 263.405(i). Be cause the statement of points on

a p p e a l w a s n o tf

i l e d w i t h i n f i f t e e n d a ys a f

t e r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n d e c r e e w a s s i g n e d , i tw a s n o tt i m e l y. Id . § 263.405(b). Coey

does not contend tha t the fiftee n-day filing pe riod ca

n be or w as extended. The L eg islature has expressly forbidden appellate courts from considering any issues that wer e not prese nted to the trial cour t in a timely

filed s t at em en t o f points on appeal. Id . § 263.405(i). Ac c or din g ly , we c a nn ot c on sid e r t he iss ue s c on c e rn ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa ilure to c omp ly wi th h is jury demand, the district court’s r efusa l to let him wit hdrawhis affidavit of relinquishment, and theWe note that, even if the statement of points on appea l w ere timely filed, it does not prese nt 3 or pr e se rv e fo r r e vie w i ssu e s r e g a rd ingthe ri g ht t o a jur y tr ia l and the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to support the dec ree . 4 su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the de c re e that Coe y a tte mpt s to r a ise by his br ie fi ng in t

his Court
. 3 Al tho ug h C o e y i n v o k e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

t h i s C o u rt , h e f

a i l e d t o f i l e a t i me ly statement of points on appe al. Se e id

. There fore , pursuant to the mandate of sec tion 263.405, we hold that Coey

did not preser

ve any issue for our

revie w in connec tion with the entry of the de cre e terminating his parenta l rig hts. W e af firm the fina l decr ee of

termination and c onserva torship.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

19, 2006