in the Interest of S.H., C.H., Z.H., and S.H., Children ( 2003 )

In the INterest of SH, Ch, ZH, and SH Children

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-087-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF

S.H., C.H., Z.H., AND S.H., CHILDREN

From the 77th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 02-055-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Larry and Doris Herrington attempted to intervene in a lawsuit filed against their daughter-in-law by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services nka the Department of Family and Protective Services for termination of her parental rights. The court denied their petition in intervention.

      This Court received the Herringtons’ brief on July 15, 2003. The Clerk of this Court notified them by letter dated July 16 that the brief was defective because: (1) it did not provide adequate record references; (2) it did not provide adequate citations to pertinent legal authorities; and (3) it did not contain a tabbed appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f), (h), (j); 10th Tex. App. (Waco) R. 14. The letter directed the Herringtons to file an amended brief which satisfied these requirements within ten days. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).

      After the Herringtons failed to comply with this directive, the Clerk of this Court sent them the following notice in an August 8 letter:

By letter dated July 16, 2003, the Court notified you that the appellants’ brief received by the court on July 15 is deficient. The notice directed you to correct the deficiencies noted within 10 days or the appeal would continue as if appellants had failed to file a brief. To date, you have not responded to this notice. Unless a brief or other satisfactory response is received within 10 days after the date of this letter, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Herringtons have failed to comply.

      Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) provides:

(a) Formal Defects. If the court determines that this rule has been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. If another brief that does not comply with this rule is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.

Id. Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      We notified the Herringtons that their brief was deficient and that they must file an amended brief within ten days. Id. 38.9(a). After they failed to comply, we notified them that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if they failed to file a proper brief. Id. 42.3(b), 44.3. They have not responded to our letter. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Judge Allen (Sitting by Assignment)

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed December 10, 2003

[CV06]