Court Opinion

ID: 9352629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:15:20.949593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:14.829655
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00517-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                          IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.T.M., A CHILD

                      On appeal from the 430th District Court
                            of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

        This appeal arises from the trial court’s termination of mother M.T.M.’s parental

rights over A.C.T.M., a minor child. 1 Appellant attempted to appeal the trial court’s order,

however her notice of appeal indicates that the trial court’s order had not been signed.

       1 We refer to appellant and the child by their initials in accordance with the rules of appellate

procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
       An associate judge’s recommendation is not a final, appealable order when a

request for a de novo hearing is timely filed. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 201.015,

201.016; Graham v. Graham, 414 S.W.3d 800, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st. Dist.] 2013,

no pet.). The record indicates that appellant filed a request for a de novo hearing in the

trial court after an associate judge recommended termination of her parental rights. The

record also indicates that the trial court conducted a de novo hearing on October 24,

2022, and orally pronounced its ruling terminating the parental rights of appellant.

       However, upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is no

final, appealable order. On December 1, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected

within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. Additionally, District

Court Clerk Alexandra Gomez informed the Clerk of this Court that there are no signed

orders or judgments memorializing the trial court’s October 24, 2022 oral pronouncement.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

See id. 42.3(a),(c).

                                              2
      Following rendition of a final judgment or order adopting the associate judge’s

recommendation, any appealing party must file a new notice of appeal.

                                                           NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                           Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of January, 2023.

                                          3