W e r ef er t o ap pel l ant by hi s i ni t i al s i n or der t o pr ot ect t he i dent i t y of t he ch i l d who was t he su bj ect 1

o f th e tri a l c o u rt p ro c e e d i n g s

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9. 8. 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0015 1-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

IN THE INTEREST OF I. R.H. , A CHILD

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas

.



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON

B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza

Appel lan t, R. L.H

., III

, the father of I.R .H

., a c hil d, c ontends that the tr ial co urt er re d 1

in re nder ing a j udg ment ag ain st him w it hout a hear ing

. The Off ic e of the Att or ney

Gene ra l

(“OAG”) filed a petitio n wit h the trial court seeking to con f irm a non -agreed child sup port

re v iew or der ( “C SR O” ) w hic h g ra nted a chi ld suppo rt ar re ar ag e and modified upw ar d the

amount o f suppo rt due from appel lan t. The pet it ion w as ser v ed on appel lan t on Nov ember

10, 200 8, an d on Decem ber 1, 200 8, appe llant timely f iled an answer obje cting to the e ntry

of the C SR O. See T EX

. F AM

. C OD E A NN

. § 23 3.0 22(a ) ( Verno n 2 0 0 8 ) (“A cou rt shall

consid er any r espo nsive plea ding tha t is inten ded as an objectio n to con f irmatio n of a child

supp ort rev iew

order not agreed to by the parties, inclu ding a general den ial, as a requestThe 2 0 t h d a y f o l l o wi n g s e r v i c e o f t h e p e t i t i o n wa s No v e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 0 8

. Ho we v e r

, t h a t d a y was a 2

S u n d a y ; a p p e l l a n t w a s th e re fo re e n ti tl e d to fi l e h i s a n s w e r o n th e fo l l o w i n g M o n d a y

, D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 8

. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 4.

Appel l ant subse quent l y f i l ed a m ot i on f or new t r i al

, w hi ch was deni ed at a hear i ng on F ebr uar y 5, 3

2009, desp i t e t he f act t hat coun sel f or t he O AG conse nt ed t o a new t r i al at t hat hea r i ng.

2 f or a court he aring.”), § 233.0 23 (Ve rnon 20 0 8 ) (“ A p arty ma y f ile a request f or a court

hear ing not lat er

than the 20th day

after the date the p eti ti on for confir mati on of a non

agreed child su ppo rt rev iew order is deliv ered to the party.”)

. Th e trial court ne v erthe less 2

confir med the CS RO on D ecember 4, 2008, w it hout a hear ing

. As the OAG conc edes on 3

appeal , t his w as re v er si ble er ro r. See i d. § 233. 025 ( Ver non 200 8) ( “A r eq uest for h ear ing

or an o rd er

sett ing a he ar ing on c onfir mati on of a non ag re ed c hil d s uppor t r ev iew or der

sta y s c onfir mati on of

the or der

pendi ng the hear ing .” ), § 23 3.026( a) ( Ver non 200 8) ( “W hen

a ti mely r eq uest for a co ur t hea ri ng has been filed as pr ov ide d by S e ction 233.023 , t he

cour t s hal l hol d a h ear ing on t he c onfir mati on of a chi ld supp ort r ev iew or der that has not

been a g r e e d t o b y t h e p a r t i e s n o t l a t e r t h a n t h e 3 0 t h d a y a ft e r t h e d a t e t h e r e q u e s t w as

filed .” ); see als o, e. g., Dav is v. Je ffer

ies

, 764 S.W .2d 559

, 560 (Te x . 1 9 8 9 ) ( “A def ault

judgme nt m ay not be rend ered af ter the def end ant has f iled an answer.”)

.

W e reverse t he jud gmen t rende red by the trial court and rema nd th e cau se f or a

hear ing on t he OA G’ s p eti ti on.

DO RI C ON TRER AS G AR ZA,

J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and

filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.