DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 23, 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01196-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-93-2714 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice FitzGerald In a letter dated Septembe r 19, 2013, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, it appears the order being appealed is not a final, appealable order. We instructed the parties to file jurisdic tional briefs addressing our concern. Appellant is appealing the associate judge’s order awar ding child suppor t arrearages signed on July 24, 2013. The associate judge conduc ted a hearing, but it was not recorded. Prior to the hearing, the parties signed a written agreemen t that if either party wished to appeal the associate judge’s ruling, the appeal would be take n directly to this Court and not to the referring
court. 1 At the hearing, the parties informed the associ ate judge of their agreement. In his brief, appellant contends that he objected when no reporte r was available to record the hearing. In his reply brief, appellant states that the parties’ waiver agreement was contingent upon the hearing

1 The agreement was not filed with the trial court until August 6, 2013.–2– being recorded. The associate j udge’s order does not mention the parties’ waiver of a de novo review before the referring court. Despite the waiver agreement, appellant timely filed a request with the referring court for a de novo hearing. Appe llant contends the associate judge considered the agreement void. Appellee counter s that the parties effectively waived their right to a de novo hearing. For reasons set forth below, we conclude the order appealed is not final regardless of the status of the waiver agreement. We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a final order rendered under Title 5 of the Family Code, which includes orders on child support. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 109.002(b) (West Supp. 2012); Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). With the exception of certain limited circumstan ces not app licable to this case, an associate judge does not have the power to render a final judgment. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 201.007(a)(14) & (a)(16) (West 2008). The family code provides that, if the right to a de novo hearing is waived, “the proposed order or judgment of the associate judge beco mes the order or judgment of the referring court only on the referring court’s signing the proposed order or judgment.” See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 201.013(b) (West 2008). Moreover, if a pa rty timely requests a de novo hearing, the referring court must conduct a hearing. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 201.015(f) (West Supp. 2012). In his jurisdictional brief, appellant acknow ledges the statutory requirement that the referring judge must sign the order. He states th at “no one in the office of the clerk of the 330th Family District Court seems to be aware of this statutory requi rement.” In her jurisdictional brief, appellee agrees that “this case sits in limb o” because the parties waiv ed their right to a de novo hearing and the referring court has not si gned the associate judge’s order.–3– Thus, assuming the parties’ waiver agreement is valid, the associate judge’s order is not final because it has not been signed by the referring court. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 201.013(b) (West 2008). On the other hand, assumi ng the parties’ waiver agreement is invalid, appellant timely requested a de novo hearing with the referring c ourt and that court must hold a hearing. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 201.015(f) (West Supp. 2012). Either way, further action is needed by the referring court, whether that be the referring court’s signature on the associate judge’s order or a de novo hearing before the referring c ourt. Because the associate judge’s order is not final, this Court l acks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

131196F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.H., A CHILD
No. 05-13-01196-CV V. On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DF-93-2714. Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald. Justices Francis and Myers, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee, Frances Reese, recover her costs of this appeal from appellant, John Lee Huffer.
Judgment entered October 23, 2013

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE