|
|
|
|
Opinion filed October 11, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00060-CV
__________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Ector County , Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-2607-PC
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed a petition seeking to terminate the parent-child relationship between Chad Russell and C.R.[1] After a jury verdict, the trial court entered an order terminating Russell=s parental rights to C.R. We affirm.[2]
Russell brings two issues on appeal arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient to support termination of his parental rights. We must determine whether Russell has preserved his issues for appellate review. The Department maintains that he has not because he failed to timely file a statement of points on appeal. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. ' 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006) states:
Not later than the 15th day after the date a final order is signed by the trial judge, a party intending to appeal the order must file with the trial court a statement of the point or points on which the party intends to appeal. The statement may be combined with a motion for new trial.
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. ' 263.405(i) (Vernon Supp. 2006) states:
The appellate court may not consider any issue that was not specifically presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of the points on which the party intends to appeal or in a statement combined with a motion for new trial. For purposes of this subsection, a claim that a judicial decision is contrary to the evidence or that the evidence is factually or legally insufficient is not sufficiently specific to preserve an issue for appeal.
Russell did not file a statement of points as required by Section 263.405(b), and he did not file a motion for new trial. The statute is clear that a party who does not file a statement of the points on appeal within fifteen days does not preserve any issues for appeal. Section 263.405(b); In re M.N., 230 S.W.3d 248, 249 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, pet. filed); In re T.T., 228 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied); In re J.W.H., 222 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.CWaco 2007, no pet.); In re D.A.R., 201 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2006, no pet.). We may not consider any issues that are not contained in a statement of points on appeal. Section 263.405(i); In re M.N., 230 S.W.3d at 249-50.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
October 11, 2007
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]The jury charge included an instruction on terminating the parent-child relationship between C.R. and Tracy Colley. The jury charge also included an instruction on terminating the parent-child relationship between A.V. and her parents, Tracy Colley and Michael Vandenberg. Based upon the verdict, the trial court=s order does not terminate the parent-child relationship between A.V. and her parents and does not terminate the parent-child relationship between Tracy Colley and C.R. The interests of A.V. are not before us on appeal.
[2]This appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 10, 2007, and reinstated when appellant=s motion to reinstate was granted on June 7, 2007. The opinion and judgment dated May 10, 2007, are withdrawn, and this court=s opinion and judgment dated October 11, 2007, are substituted therefor.