COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of T.L.B., Jr., a/k/a T.B., A Child

Appellate case number: 01-16-00806-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-05274J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of 

the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). The appellate 

records were completed in this case after the clerk’s record was filed on November 11, 

2016, which set appellant’s brief due to be filed within 20 days, or by December 5, 2016.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(1). On the day after the brief was due, December 6, 2016, 

appellant’s counsel, James H. Dyer, filed this motion for a first extension of time to file 

the appellant’s brief until January 15, 2017, with a certificate of conference stating that he 

could not reach appellee’s counsel for consent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.5(b), 

38.6(d).

Appeals in parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 

180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX.

ST. JUD. ADMIN. R. 6.2(a) (West Supp. 2016). The notice of appeal in this case was 

timely filed on October 10, 2016, in the trial court from the September 22, 2016 decree 

for termination, by original counsel for the mother, T.M.J., setting the 180-day 

compliance deadline for April 10, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(b). Although 

this is appellant’s counsel’s first extension request, the accelerated schedule in parental 

termination cases requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines and greater scrutiny 

of extension requests. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(2) (stating that record extension 

requests in parental termination cases may be granted by appellate court, but must not 

exceed 30 days cumulatively, absent extraordinary circumstances).

Appellant’s counsel contends that an extension is needed because his heavy trial 

and hearing schedule and his health issues in the past month made him unable to 

complete appellant’s brief on time. More importantly, appellant’s counsel asserts that 
such a long, 41-day extension until January 15, 2017, is necessary because the trial court 

has reset the hearing for his motion for new trial, timely filed in this case in the trial court 

on October 24, 2016, from December 6, 2016, until January 5, 2017, which is the last day 

of the trial court’s plenary power. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 4, 329b(a), (e). Appellant’s 

counsel further asserts that such a long extension is necessary because, assuming the trial 

court will deny the motion for new trial, the court reporter will likely take at least a week 

after the January 5, 2017 hearing to prepare the reporter’s record in an expedited manner, 

and then counsel will need a few days after receiving the record to complete appellant’s 

brief.

Accordingly, appellant’s first motion for an extension of time to file appellant’s 

brief is GRANTED until January 17, 2017, but no further extensions will be 

granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d). If appellant’s brief is not 

filed by January 17, 2017, this case may be abated for the trial court to hold a hearing 

and appellant’s counsel, James H. Dyer, may be required to show cause why he should 

not be relieved of his duties after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court on the 

record. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2) (West Supp. 2016).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: December 8, 2016