Court Opinion

ID: 2813979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-02 07:15:14.61745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:23.460435
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-15-00222-CV
                           ____________________

           IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.W., M.G.W. AND C.E.W.

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                        San Jacinto County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 12925
________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On April 14, 2015, the trial court signed a Judgment. Appellant filed a notice

of appeal on June 8, 2015, wherein he describes the Judgment as denying parental

termination or child protection. We notified the parties that the appeal would be

dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed too late to perfect an accelerated

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). Appellant contends in his Motion to

Reconsider that the trial court’s Judgment denying termination and setting forth

new expanded visitation should not be treated as an accelerated appeal. Appellant

contends he filed a Motion for New Trial on May 5, 2015.

                                         1
      An appeal in a suit in which termination of the parent-child
      relationship is in issue shall be given precedence over other civil cases
      and shall be accelerated by the appellate courts. The procedures for an
      accelerated appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
      apply to an appeal in which the termination of the parent-child
      relationship is in issue.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a) (West 2014). Appellant argues termination is

not “in issue” in the appeal because his appellate brief will address other rulings,

but according to the record currently before us, termination was at issue in the trial

that resulted in the judgment he has attempted to appeal. We conclude that section

109.002(a) of the Texas Family Code requires that this appeal be accelerated. See

id.; see also In re S.T., No. 01-05-00664-CV, 2006 WL 2506596, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (accelerated appeal

rules apply to an appeal from an order disposing of a petition for termination of

parental rights). Furthermore, the filing of a motion for new trial or any other post-

trial motion did not extend the time to perfect this accelerated appeal. Tex. R. App.

P. 28.1(b).

       To perfect his appeal, Appellant had to file a notice of appeal by May 4,

2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). A notice of appeal filed more than fifteen days

after that date did not invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Verburgt v.

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
                                          2
      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                           _______________________________
                                                  LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                        Justice

Submitted on July 1, 2015
Opinion Delivered July 2, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                       3