Court Opinion

ID: 9411101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 19:15:33.377456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:04.155289
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-00514-CV

                               IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.J., a Child

                      From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022-PA-01184
                         Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 19, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           This is an accelerated appeal arising out of a parental termination suit filed by the Texas

Department of Family and Protective Services. On May 10, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice

of appeal stating her intent to appeal a “judgment rendered on May 9, 2023.” On May 19, 2023,

the clerk’s record was filed, and it did not include a final order terminating appellant’s parental

rights; instead, it contained judge’s notes dated May 9, 2023, which indicated the trial court would

issue an order designating the subject child’s maternal grandparents as joint managing

conservators and appellant as possessory conservator.

           The Texas Family Code authorizes a party to appeal a final order terminating a parent’s

rights to a child in accordance with “the procedures for accelerated appeals in civil cases under the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.405(a); accord In re D.M.B., 467
                                                                                     04-23-00514-CV

S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. denied). Generally, “an appeal may be

taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all

pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In contrast to a signed, final judgment, a

judge’s handwritten notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record. In

re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.).

       Because the judge’s notes contained in the clerk’s record did not constitute a final,

appealable order, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by June 14, 2023 why this appeal

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); In re A.K.P., No. 04-

20-00305-CV, 2020 WL 5027398, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 26, 2020, pet denied)

(dismissing parental termination appeal from judge’s notes for lack of jurisdiction). We cautioned

appellant if she failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal would be

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). No response has been filed by appellant. We therefore

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

                                                   PER CURIAM

                                                 -2-