Court Opinion

ID: 9398062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 11:08:37.701528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.574263
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-22-00754-CV
                                     NO. 03-23-00289-CV

                                   C. G. and L.G., Appellants

                                                v.

               Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

                FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
        NO. 21DFAM327449, THE HONORABLE DALLAS SIMS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellants C.G. (Mother) and L.G. (Father) each filed a notice of appeal from an

associate judge’s order terminating their parental rights to their child Z.G. (Daughter). The

district court subsequently granted a de novo hearing on the matter, and Mother filed with this

Court a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, abate this appeal pending the outcome of the

de novo hearing.     Because both the clerk’s record of the underlying proceedings and the

reporter’s record of the trial before the associate judge had already been filed in this appeal, we

abated the appeal.

               We have now received the district court’s de novo decree of termination. We

construe Mother’s and Father’s notices of appeal from the associate judge’s order as prematurely

filed notices of appeal from the de novo decree of termination, which we have filed separately

under cause number 03-23-00289-CV. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(a). On this Court’s own
motion, we consolidate for all purposes the appeal in cause number 03-22-00754-CV with the

appeal in cause number 03-23-00289-CV. Accordingly, all records and documents filed in cause

number 03-22-00754-CV are consolidated into cause number 03-23-00289-CV.                The

consolidated appeal shall proceed under cause number 03-23-00289-CV, and cause number

03-22-00754-CV is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See In re A.G.D.M., 533 S.W.3d

546, 547 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017, no pet.); Graham v. Graham, 414 S.W.3d 800, 801-02

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Guyaux v. Walnut Springs Homeowners

Ass’n, Inc., No. 03-20-00584-CV, 2021 WL 162503 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 5, 2021, no pet.)

(mem. op.).

                                            __________________________________________
                                            Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

03-22-00754-CV Dismissed

03-23-00289-CV Consolidated

Filed: May 26, 2023

                                               2