## In the Court of Appeals Second App ellate District of Texas

at Fort W orth

____________

________ _______ No. 02

- 19

- 00218

- CV

_______________

____________

On Appeal from th e 393rd District Court Denton County, Texa s Trial Court No. 16

- 00637

- 393

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### J.B., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Mother appealed the judgment terminating her parental rights to her child

. 1 We dismiss. Parental

- rights

- termination appeals are accelerated. Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(a)(1). So far as reasonably possibly, we are required to dispose of them w ithin 180 days after the appellant files the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a); see also In re M.P. , 0 2

- 18

- 00361

- CV, 2019 WL 490514, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 7, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (describing termination appeals as ultra

- a ccelerated). Mother ’s brief was origina lly due on July 29, 2019. Bef o re that deadline , o n July 24, Mother’s appointed counsel moved to extend the time to file her brief, and on July 25, we granted her motion and extend ed the time to August 12. But on July 29, Mother’s appointed counsel moved to withdraw because Mother w anted to proceed pro se

. In response to th at motion, on August 2, we abated the appeal for the trial court to conduct a Faretta hearing. See Faretta v. Calif ornia , 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct . 2525, 2541 (1975) ( “ Altho ugh a defendant need not [personally] have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self

- representation, [the defendant] should be made aware of

1 We refe r to appellant simply as Mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring courts to use aliases to refer to minors in parental

- right s
- termination cases and

— if needed to protect the minors ’ ide ntities

— to also use aliases w hen refer ring to family member s ); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d).3

the d angers and disadvantages of self

- r epresentation, so that the record will e stablish that [the defendant chose to proceed pro se ] ‘ with eyes open.’ ” ). A s requested, the trial court conducted the F aretta hearing , and supplemental records of that he aring were filed in our court , so on August 2 9 we granted appointed

cou nsel’s motion to withdraw, allowed Mother to proceed pro se, and set September 27 as the deadline for her brief. In our order, we specifically stated that because Mother’s ap peal was accelerated, we would not grant any additional brief ing

exten sions and that should she fail to file a brief, dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was one of the possible consequences. September 27 came and went, and Mother failed to file a brief, so on October 3, we sent a cl erk’s letter warni ng her that her appeal m ight be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she filed on or before October 14 both a brief and a motion reasonably explaining why she did not file h er brief earlier and why she need e d more time

. To date, Mother has filed neithe r a brief nor a motion. Because Mother has not prosecuted her appeal, we dismiss it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1 ); see also In re C.A.O. , No. 13

- 16

- 00237

- CV, 2016 W L 5234605, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Sept. 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (p er curi am) ; I n re K.R.C. , No. 08

- 08

- 00161

- CV, 2008 WL 5046309, at *1 (Tex. App.

— El Paso Nov. 25, 2008, order) (mem. op.) (dismissing father’s appeal), disp. on merits , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.) (affirming mother’ s termination).4 /s/ Eli zabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Delivered: October 25, 2019