Opinion filed August 21 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 15

- 00032

- C V

__________ 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 den ied 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 assoc iate 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 reques t 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 t hird working day after the date the party receives notice of the substance of the associate judge’s report.” T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 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 rep ort via e

- mail. See
id. § 201.011; T EX

. R. C IV

. 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 three

day limit took effect on September 1, 2013. See Act of May 2 4, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch. 916, § § 5
, 11, 12, 2013 Tex. Gen . Law s

___ (effective September 1, 2013) (replacing the word “seventh” with the word “third”) (current version at F AM

. § 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 reques t for a de novo hearing before the referring court was not timely filed, Appellant was not3

entitled to a de novo hearing , and t he district court did not err when it denied Appellant’s request

. See F AM

. § 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: W right , C.J., W illson, J

. , and Bailey, J.