In a cc o rd ance w it h Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , t he j uv eni le w il l be 1 re ferred to by

an a li as. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.8 (c).

NO. 07-07 -049 9-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA RC H 31, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MATTER OF S.D .S.

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T OF S W IS HE R CO UNT Y;

SIT T ING AS A JUVENIL E COURT NO. 439; HON.HAROLD KEET ER, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, S.D .S., appeal s t he di spos it ion i n hi s j uv eni le cas e c ontendi ng that 1 S wis h e r C o u n ty d id n o th a ve p ro p e r ju ri s d ic t io n t o h e a r h is ca s e b e c a u s e h e d id n o th a ve noti ce of the c ase’ s t ra nsfer from Potter C ounty . W e di smi ss for want o f jur is dicti on.F urth e r re fe re nces to the Tex as Fami ly C ode w il l be by

referenc e to “§ __” or 2 “s ect ion __.” -2- Factual Bac kg ro und On A ug ust20, 2007, the P otter C ounty Att or ney ’s off ic e fil ed a peti ti on al leg ing that S.D.S. had engaged in de linquent co ndu ct and p ray ed tha t, upo n a f inding tha t the child had eng ag ed i n del inq uent condu ct, S.D.S .’ s c are, c ust ody , and co ntrol be di spos ed by the tr ial cour t inc lud ing the poss ibi li ty of S.D .S.’ s c ommitmentto the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion
. On S eptember

12th, the tr ial co urt hel d a h ear ing and adj udi cat ed S. D. S. a s h av ing engaged in de linquent co ndu ct. O n Sep tem ber 28 , the Potte r County Attorne y ’s Of f ice th filed a mot ion to transfer di spos it ion i n the ca se to t he j uv eni le’ s c ounty of re sid e nce, Sw is her Cou nty . See T EX . F A M I LY C OD E A NN . § 51.07 (V er non 200 8)
. H ow ev er , nei ther 2 S.D .S. nor

hi s attor ney

w ere serv ed w it h the M oti on to Tran sfer or the cor re spond ing order grant ing the transfer. On N ov ember

19th , a dis posi ti on hear ing w as hel d in Sw is her C ounty before the county co urt j udg e. Al thoug h S. D.S. a n d h is att or ney w ere presentat the d is posi ti on hear ing , a r ev iew

of an audi o recordin g of the h ear ing does not est abl is h tha t S. D. S. obj ect ed to the commenc ement of the dispos it ion heari ng based on the fail ure of the Stat e to g iv e S. D. S. n oti ce of the fil ing of the mot io n fo r tr a n sfer of the h ear ing
. After hear ing ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt c oncl uded t h a t S. D. S. h ad eng ag ed i n del inq uent condu ct, deter mined that S.D .S. w as in need of rehabi li tati on, and that i t was in his bes t i nterestand in the b est

interestof

the communi ty

to commi t S.D. S. to the care, custod y , and control ofAl thoug h the Sta te, in it s b ri ef, sta tes thatthere i s n o ev ide nce in the record tha t 3 an obj ect ion w as made reg ardin g the noti ce is sue, the audi o rec o rding does co ntai n an ina udi ble di sc ourse betw een S. D. S.’ s attor ney and the tr ial jud g e at the c ommencement of th e d isposit ion hear ing
. For anal y si s p ur poses , we w il l ass ume thatan o bje cti on was made as to v enue. But see T EX . R. C IV . P. 86(1 ); In re D.D .C ., No. 05- 97- 01844- CV , 199 8 W L 26517 8, at*2 (Tex .App. –Da ll as Ma y 27, 1998, no pet.)( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) (o bje cti on to i mprop er

v enue i s waiv ed i f not made b y writ te n m o ti on fil ed pr ior to or concu rrently w ith an y

othe r plea, ple adin g, or mo tion o the r than a special ap pea rance ).

-3- the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion for a n i ndeter minat e per iod not to ex ce e d S. D. S.’ s 1 9 th bir thday
. Al thoug h S. D. S. a nd hi s attor ney attended the dis posi ti on heari ng , S.D. S. was not serv ed wi th a cop y

of the m otion fo r t ransfer. S.D.S. app eals con ten ding that , beca use noti ce of the transfer

w as not ser

v ed upon him, Sw is her County did nothav e j ur is dicti on to en ter the dispositio n orde r. The refore, S. D.S. con ten ds tha t the dispositio n orde r must be v acat ed. Law and An alysi s As a thresh old m atte r, we co nside r ou r jurisdiction t o rev iew t he ch allenged order. S.D .S. does not c ontes t t hat P otter C ounty had jur is dicti on o ver t he i nit ial adj udi cat ion proce edin g. § 51.04 . Althou gh S.D.S. f rame d the issue as on e of jurisdiction, th e issue is actu ally one o f venu e. S ee § 51. 06(a ). Ven ue is n ot a const itution al requiremen t; rathe r, iti s a st atuto ry

req uirement. See id. A juv eni le' s ri g ht to appea l in a j uv eni le proceed ing 3 is c o n t ro l l e d b y s e ct i o n 5 6
. 0 1 ( c )
. § 5 6
. 0 1 ( c ) ; I n re R
. J
. M
. , 2 1 1 S
. W .3d 3 93, 3 94 (Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2006, pet. deni ed) . Howev er , sect ion 56.01 does not autho ri z e an appeal from a transfer order i ss ued und er

se cti on 5 1 .0 7 . See § 56 .01( c)
. W hen a-4-

legislativ e en actm entsa y s a ju v enile ma y a ppe al orders de lineat ed in th e stat ute , the re is no r ig ht t o appea l orders not so inc lud ed. In re R. J.M ., 211 S.W .3d at 394; See I n re J .H ., 176 S.W .3d 677, 679 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 2005, no pet.)
. Nei ther secti on 56.01 or 5 1 .07 expressly

allow a juv enile to app eal f rom a mot ion to transfer. Th erefore, ap plyi ng the plain lan g uag e of secti on 56. 01( c) , w e conc lud e that an order transfer ri ng the caus e to another county under se cti on 57. 01 i s n ot an appeal abl e order
. See I n re R. J.M ., 211 S. W .3d a t 394; In re J .H ., 176 S. W .3d a t 679
. Con cl usi on Beca use the c ontroll ing st atute does not author iz e an appeal from a t ra nsfer order is sued under

se cti on 51. 07, w e conc lud e the order transfer ri ng S.D .S.’ s c ase to an other county for dis posi ti on is not an appeal abl e order
. In re M .A.O ., No. 04- 07- 00658- CV , 200 8 W L 51 7 0 2 9 7 , at*6, ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o D ec. 10, 2008, no pet . h. ). Be caus e the transfer order is not an app eala ble orde r, w e are w ithou t jurisdiction to conside r S.D.S.’s is sue and mus t di smi ss the appeal
. Id.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice