in the Interest of J.G., M.D.,Jr., C.D., and L.D., Children ( 2020 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00322-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.G., M.D. JR., C.D., AND L.D., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 271st District Court
Wise County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV17-11-994
Before Bassel, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an ultra-accelerated appeal1 in which Appellant M.D. Sr. (Father)
attempts to appeal the termination of his parental rights to his four children: John,
Matthew, Cindy, and Luke. 2 On December 16, 2019,3 we informed the parties that in
light of the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in In re R.R.K., No. 18-0273, 2019
WL 6825953 (Tex. Dec. 13, 2019), we were concerned that we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal. In R.R.K., the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s
memorandum, which lacked many of the required statutory elements for a final
judgment in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship, was not a final judgment.
See id. at *6. Our letter explained,
Here, the record includes a thirteen-page final termination order that was
signed by the associate judge on May 1, 2019. But five days later, the
associate judge granted Appellant Father’s motion for new trial, thus
vacating the termination order. See In re S.C.S., No. 07-11-00299-CV,
2011 WL 5245190, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 3, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
The record then includes a two-paragraph, one-page letter that the
associate judge issued on June 24, 2019, after holding a new trial. That
letter, which states that Father’s parental rights are terminated, does not
1
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (requiring appellate court to dispose of appeal
from judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180
days after notice of appeal is filed).
2
See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring court to use aliases to refer to minors in
an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights). All children are referred to
using aliases.
3
Although Appellant Father’s brief was filed that same day, he did not challenge
the finality of the termination order.
2
meet the requirements of Texas Family Code section 161.206(d). See
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(d). After Appellant Father requested a
de novo hearing, the trial court issued an order stating that it had
“ADOPT[ED] and APPROVE[D] the findings and orders of
Associate Judge Alyce Bondurant.”
Because the trial court adopted and approved a letter ruling that
does not comply with the statutory requirements for an order
terminating parental rights, it appears that there is no final judgment or
order subject to appeal and that Appellant’s notice of appeal is
premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), 27.1(a).
Our letter gave the parties until December 23, 2019, to furnish this court with a
signed copy of a compliant termination order and warned that the failure to do so
would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 43.2(f), 44.3, 44.4(a)(2). No motion for extension was filed, nor did we
receive a termination order.4
The Department’s brief was due January 6, 2020. On that date, the
4
Department filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief and acknowledged
our December 16 letter:
A December 16, 2019 letter from the Clerk stated if a compliant
termination order had not been signed and furnished to the Court by
December 23, 2019, the appeal would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. The undersigned counsel has inquired of trial counsel to
obtain such a compliant order. As of the preparation of this motion, it
does not appear that such a compliant order has been furnished to the
Court by supplementing the clerk’s record.
Based on our disposition of the appeal, the Department’s motion for extension is
denied as moot.
3
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 9, 2020
4