in the Interest of T. G. H. and J. S. H., Children ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00286-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF T. G. H. AND J. S. H., CHILDREN
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 117th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
This matter is before the Court on appellant’s motion for leave to file notice of
appeal. We now dismiss the matter for want of jurisdiction.
On May 20, 2022, the trial court signed a final order in suit affecting the parent-
child relationship. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 23, 2022. On June 27, 2022,
the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely
perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was
not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive.
On July 25, 2022, appellant filed a motion for leave to file notice of appeal.
Appellant’s motion for leave to file a notice of appeal was not timely, as it was filed both
later than the ten days required by the Clerk of the Court’s notice and more than fifteen
days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are to
construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right to
appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effectuate the
purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex.
1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by
altering the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by
rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no
pet.).
Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, and appellant’s motion for leave to file
the notice of appeal was also untimely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s motion and entire cause for want of jurisdiction.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
25th day of August, 2022.
2