in the Interest of Z.A.S., a Child

NO. 07-09-0136-CV


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL D


JULY 22, 2009

______________________________


IN THE INTEREST OF Z.A.S., A CHILD

_________________________________


FROM THE 154TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY;


NO. 17297; HONORABLE FELIX KLEIN, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER

          In this restricted appeal, appellant J.S.J. brings three issues challenging his adjudication as father of Z.A.S. and resulting support orders. Before us is a motion filed by appellee, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, entitled, “Agreed Motion for Reversal and Remand and for Immediate Issuance of Mandate.” The prayer seeks reversal, remand and a hearing on the merits.

          Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) sets forth the actions an appellate court may take on the agreement of the parties for disposition of the appeal:

(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement;


(B) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreements; or

 

(C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement.

 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)-(C).

 

          The relief requested here does not come within any of the permissible means for disposition specified by the rule. Without an agreement on the merits of the appeal, the Attorney General seeks a disposition requiring a finding of reversible error. We are not authorized “to order a new trial merely on the agreement of the parties absent reversible error . . . .” Notes and Comments, Tex. R. App. P. 42.1; see In re J.A.B., No. 08-06-0201-CV, 2007 WL 2274671 (Tex.App.–El Paso Aug. 9, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (on appeal of default paternity and support orders, agreed motion of appellee Attorney General to reverse and remand proper since appellee conceded one of appellant’s points of error and the court of appeals agreed trial court erred). For that reason, the motion as presented is denied.

          It is so ordered.

                                                                                      Per Curiam