Court Opinion

ID: 4698563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-25 06:16:38.066944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:54.895991
License: Public Domain

In The

                                  Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                                __________________

                                NO. 09-21-00031-CV
                                __________________

                     IN THE INTEREST OF C.H. AND B.C.

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 19-05-06925-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The unknown father, acting through court-appointed counsel, filed a motion

to dismiss the unknown father’s appeal. 1 The attorney appointed by the trial court to

      1
        We note that, in the final judgment, the trial court found that T.C. is the father
of same child the Department alleged in its pleadings is unknown. However, the
judgment the trial court signed treats the unknown father and T.C. as different
individuals even though both were alleged to have fathered B.C. T.C., whom the
trial court found by clear and convincing evidence is B.C.’s father, did not file a
notice of appeal. Therefore, given the manner the trial court handled the matter, we
will assume the attorney appointed to represent the unknown father filed the motion
to dismiss the unknown father’s appeal solely on behalf of the unknown father and
not also for T.C.
                                          1
represent the unknown father filed the motion to dismiss before this Court decided

any issue in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

      We grant the motion and dismiss the unknown father’s appeal. As to A.C., the

mother of the children affected by the trial court’s order, the appeal will continue.

      APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

                                                   PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 11, 2021
Opinion Delivered June 24, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                          2