Opinion filed August 21, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-15-00032-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.M. AND A.B.D., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-3369-PC

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

This is an appeal from an order in a parental termination case in which the

district court denied a request for a de novo hearing. In a single issue, Appellant, 

who is the mother of the children, contends that the district court erred when it 

refused to hold a de novo hearing. We affirm.

I. Background Facts

The record shows that the associate judge conducted a trial on the merits of 

the issue of parental termination. On Friday, January 9, the trial concluded, and on 

Monday, January 12, the associate judge sent her report via e-mail to the parties.
2

The associate judge signed the final termination order on Friday, January 16, and 

Appellant filed a request for a de novo hearing before the referring court that same 

day. The referring court, “[a]fter reviewing all pleadings and briefs,” denied 

Appellant’s request for a de novo hearing.

II. Analysis

Section 201.015(a) of the Family Code provides that a party may file a request 

for a de novo hearing to be conducted by the referring court; however, the request 

must be written and must be filed “not later than the third working day after the date 

the party receives notice of the substance of the associate judge’s report.” TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 201.015(a) (West 2014) (emphasis added). When such a request is 

filed, the referring court “shall hold a de novo hearing” within thirty days. Id.

§ 201.015(f). In this case, Appellant received notice of the substance of the associate 

judge’s report on January 12 when the associate judge sent the report via e-mail. See

id. § 201.011; TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f)(10). Appellant filed her request for a de novo 

hearing on January 16, four working days after receiving notice of the substance of 

the associate judge’s report. Thus, Appellant’s request was not filed in a timely 

manner. 

Appellant contends that she had seven days to file her request, but she relies 

on a previous version of the Family Code that does not apply to this case. The threeday limit took effect on September 1, 2013. See Act of May 24, 2013, 83rd Leg.,

R.S., ch. 916, §§ 5, 11, 12, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws ___ (effective September 1, 2013)

(replacing the word “seventh” with the word “third”) (current version at FAM.

§ 201.015(a)); see also Craig v. Craig, No. 11-15-00029-CV, 2015 WL 1569938, at 

*1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). The original petition 

for protection of a child was filed in January 2014; accordingly, the current statute 

controls. Craig, 2015 WL 1569938, at *1 n.1. Because Appellant’s request for a de 

novo hearing before the referring court was not timely filed, Appellant was not 
3

entitled to a de novo hearing, and the district court did not err when it denied 

Appellant’s request. See FAM. § 201.015(a); In re B.M.A.J., No. 12-12-00225-CV, 

2012 WL 6674428 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 20, 2012, pet. denied). We overrule 

Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.

III. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the order of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE 

August 21, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.