### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 21 - 00298 - CV

K. R. R. , Appellant
v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 21 - 1053 , THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE , JUDGE PRE SIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appella nt K.R.R. filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking to chal lenge the t rial court ’ s judgment terminating her parental rights and appointing the Departme nt as managing

con servator for her child. 1 K.R.R. ’ s bri ef was due in this Court August 9, 2021. When her brief was not filed by the due date, the clerk ’ s office for this Court sent an overdue notice explaining that her brief was late and that the failure to file a brief and a motion for an e xtensi on of t i m e by September 7, 2021, might result in the appeal being dismissed fo r want o f prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3
.

In addition, although nothing in the record before this Court indicates that any ind igency determination had been made at the trial c ourt , K.R.R. included in her pro se notice of

a ppeal a statement indicating that she “ intend[s] to make an application as an ind igent citizen fo r

1 Because this case involves the te rmina ti on of parental rights, w e ref er to Appe llant by her i nitial s . Se e Tex. Fam. Cod e § 10 9.00 2(d) ; Tex. R. App. P . 9.8
.2

a court
- appoin ted attorney for this appeal. ” In light of the preceding , this Court abated the appeal on our o wn motion and instructed the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether K.R.R. wished to p ursue her appeal, whether she was indigent, and whether she was entitled to the appo i ntment of counse l to represent her in thi s appeal. See K.R.R. v. Texas D ep ’ t of Fam. & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 2 1

- 00298

- CV, 2021 WL 4147590, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept. 13, 2021, order) ; s ee also In re M.S. , 115 S.W.3 d 534 , 544 (Tex. 2003) ( observing that “ [i]n Texas, there is a statutory right to counsel fo r indigent per s ons in parental

- rights te rmination cases” (citing Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013 )). Further, this Court instructed the trial court to file supplemental clerk ’ s and reporter ’ s records pertaining to the hearing and explained that the case would be rei nsta ted in t his Court when the supplemental records were filed . Al ternatively, this Court explained that the case would be re instated on October 13, 2021, if no supplemental records were filed with this Court. The trial court sch eduled the hearing for October 6, 20 2 1, but K.R.R. did not appear. Accordingly, no supplemental records were prepared or filed, and this case was reinstated on Octobe r 13, 2021.

To date , no brief has been filed by K.R.R. , and she has not otherwise responded to the overdue brief notice
. Ac cordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.3(b) , (c) (expla ining that case may be subject to involuntary dismissal fo r want of pro secut ion or for failure to comply with requirements of R ules of A ppe llate P rocedure, co ur t order, or notice from cl erk requiring action within certain time); Tex. Fam. Code § 263.405(a)

- (b) (stating that “ appeal of a final order . . . is go ve rned by the proc edures for accelerated appeals in civil c ases under the Texas Rules of Appellate P r oc edu re ” and requiring warning in final order that failure to comp l y with Rules may result in dis missal of appeal); N. P. v. Texas Dep ’ t of Fam. & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 19

- 00217

- CV, 2019 WL 3952842, at *1 & n. 3 (Tex. App.

— Austin3

Aug. 22, 2019, no pet.) (m em. op.) (dismissing father ’ s appeal in termination case where father did not file his appel lant ’ s brief after being warn ed that f ailure to file brief c ould result i n di smissal for want of pro secution); see also In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 350

- 51 (Tex
. 2 003) (noting that “ criminal fundamental

- error doctrine ” allowing court to review error that was neither raised at t rial nor assigned on appea l does not apply in parental termination cases)
.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: October 21, 2021