NO. 07-09 -035 8-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER8, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF D. G., M .H ., R. H. , AN D C. D. H. , C HI LDR EN

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 23 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 7- 541,709 ; H ON ORABLE LESLI E H ATCH , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , M.H., f iled a no tice of app eal from the trial court’s order termin ating his parental r ig hts to his ch il dren. W e di smi ss thi s a ppeal for w ant o f jur is dicti on. An appeal from an order ter minat ing the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s a cc ele ra ted a nd g ov er ned by

the ru les for

ac cel erated appeal s i n c iv il ca ses . See Tex . F am. C ode An n. §§ 109.002 (a ) and 263 .405( a) ( Ver non 2009)
. R ule 26.1 (b ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proced ure provides tha t in an accele rated a ppe al, the n otice o f app eal m ust be f iled w ithin2

tw ent y days aft er the o rder is sig ned
. More over, ne ither a m otion for new trial, a request for f in d ing s o f factand conc lus ion of law , nor any othe r post -t ri al moti on w il l extend the deadl ine for f ili n g a n oti ce of appeal under R ule 26.1 (b ). See Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 263.405 (c ) (V er non 200 9)
. See also In re K.A .F. , 160 S.W .3d 923 , 926 -27 ( T e x. 2 005 ). The ter minat ion order

w as si g ned on September 15, 20 09, mak ing the noti ce of appeal due on or

before Oc tober

5, 2009. Appl y ing the fifteen-da y extens ion prov ide d by Rul e 26.3 of

the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , t he not ic e of appeal co uld hav e been filed as l ate a s O cto ber 20, 2009. The not ic e of appeal w as filed in the tr ial co urt on Oct ober 22, 2009. Pursuantto Rul e 42. 3( a) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , by lette r dated Nov em ber 4, 200 9, this Court not if ied coun sel of the un time ly

f iled no tice of appeal and direct ed c ounse l to s how ca use w hy the appeal shoul d notbe d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. Cou nsel was al so noti fied th at a post -j udg ment moti on w oul d not extend th e de adline in w hich to f ile the no tice of app eal. Cou nsel ti mely re spond ed ex pla ini ng that a moti on for new tr ial hear ing sc hedul ed for Sep tember

18, 2009, had bee n reces sed and c onti nued unti l Oct ober 9, 2009. C ounse l include d a cop y

of the trial court’s “Order on Motion for New Trial and Notice of

Appe al” by w hic h the tr ial co urt den ied the re q uestfor a new tr ial
. The ord e r was si g ned on Oct ober 9, 2009, and fil ed on Nov ember 4, 2009. Notwiths tandi ng thatthe Tex as Supreme C our t has di re cte d us to cons tr ue th e Rules of Appe llate Proce dure reason ably and liberally so tha t the rig ht of a ppe al is not lost3

by i mposi ng req uirements not absol ute lynec ess ar y to effectthe pur pose of a r ule , Ver bur gt v . D or ner , 9 5 9 S.W .2d 615 (Tex. 1997 ), reg arding our jurisdiction, w e are prohi bit e d from enl arg ing the ti me for pe rfect ing an a ppeal i n a c iv il ca se. See T ex. R
. App. P. 2 ( prov idi ng t h a t we m a y not sus pend a ru le’ s o perati on or order a di fferent proce dure to alter the time for perfecting an ap pea l). T his Court ha s no discretio n to pe rmit Appel lan t’ s u nti mely

fil ed noti ce of ap peal to confer j ur is dicti on ov er

hi s a ppeal
. See In re T
. W. , 89 S.W .3d 641, 642 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002, no pet.) (op. on reh’ g ). See gen erally Den ton C ounty

v. H uther

, 43 S.W .3d 6 65, 6 67 ( Tex .App. – Fo rtW orth 20 01, n o pet .) (dismissing an acce lerate d ap pea l fo r w antof jurisdiction w here app ellant s failed to f ile the ir notice of

app eal w ithin twenty days af ter the date the ord er w as signed). Pendi ng before thi s C our t are tw o separate cour

t repor ters’ req uest s for

extens ion s of t ime in which t o prep are the reporte r’s record . Considering our dispo sition of Appe llant’s appeal , t hose re q uest s a re rendered moot. Acc ordin g ly , t his pur por ted a ppeal i s d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.