in the Interest of C.D.A. and C.E.A., Children ( 2013 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00489-CV
In the Interest of C.D.A. and C.E.A., § From the 323rd District Court
Children
§ of Tarrant County (323-93963J-11)
§ January 24, 2013
§ Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00489-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.A. AND
C.E.A., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant K.A.’s rights were terminated to his children, C.D.A. and C.E.A.,
in an order by the trial court on November 30, 2011. Appellant did not file his
notice of appeal until December 6, 2012. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal
was untimely, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
An appeal from an order terminating an appellant’s parental rights is an
accelerated appeal. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002 (West Supp. 2012).
Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due on December 20, 2011, twenty
days from the date of the final order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b); In re L.N.M.,
182 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Appellant’s notice of
appeal was not filed until December 6, 2012, three hundred and seventy-one
days after the order was signed.
On December 14, 2012, we sent a letter to Appellant stating our concern
that we lacked jurisdiction over his appeal. We notified Appellant that the appeal
may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to
continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellant filed a response, but it did not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
Section 161.211 of the family code states that the validity of an order
terminating the parental rights is not subject to collateral or direct attack after the
sixth month after the date the order was signed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 161.211 (West 2008). Therefore, any filing seeking to collaterally attack the
termination order, such as a bill of review, must have been filed before June
2012. To construe his notice of appeal as a bill of review would still not grant this
court jurisdiction over the case. Because Appellant did not file his notice of
appeal until December 2012, his notice of appeal was untimely, and the
termination order is no longer subject to collateral or direct attack. We therefore
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
3
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: January 24, 2013
4