COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00154-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.F., T.L.F.,
K.D.B., II, A.A.H., AND N.C.H.,
CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Mother attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order dated April
14, 2011, in which the associate judge terminated her parental rights to L.L.F.,
T.L.F., K.D.B. II, A.A.H, and N.C.H. in cause number 323-92486J-10. In the
same case, the associate judge terminated alleged biological father T.F.’s
parental rights to L.L.F. and T.L.F. and alleged biological father K.B.’s parental
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
rights to K.D.B. II. The associate trial judge declined to terminate alleged
biological father D.H.’s parental rights to A.A.H. and N.C.H. and appointed D.H.
as A.A.H. and N.C.H.’s possessory conservator.
On May 24, 2011, we sent a letter to Mother informing her of our concern
that we may not have jurisdiction because her notice of appeal appeared to be
premature. We informed Mother that we had received notice that a new petition
had been filed in the trial court after the associate trial judge signed the April 14,
2011 order and that it remained pending, making the April 14, 2011 order an
unappealable interlocutory order.2 See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a
final judgment and that a judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all
parties and all issues); In re B.F.G., No. 02-09-00136-CV, 2009 WL 1996292, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 9, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing
attempted appeal of termination of parental rights for want of jurisdiction when
termination order did not dispose of the presumed fathers’ parental rights to all
four children and did not dispose of mother’s parental rights to one child).
We also informed Mother that the April 14, 2011 order had been signed by
an associate judge but that appellate deadlines in suits affecting the parent-child
relationship are triggered by an order or judgment signed by the district judge.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.016(b)–(c) (West 2010) (stating that except for
2
The new petition seeks to terminate alleged father W.H.’s parental rights
to T.L.F.
2
agreed orders and default orders, the date an order or judgment by the referring
court is signed is the controlling date for purposes of an appeal to the court of
appeals). We stated that the parties had until June 13, 2011, to correct the
defect in the record by furnishing this court with a signed, final judgment that
disposes of all parties and that if no final judgment disposing of all parties had
been signed and furnished by that date, we would dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Mother’s counsel filed a response to our May 24, 2011 letter, asking us to
maintain the filings in this case as ―premature filings‖ subject to being deemed
―filed‖ when a final appealable order is entered by the trial court. However, as of
June 20, 2011, no trial settings or new final orders had been issued by the trial
court in this case. Accordingly, we decline Mother’s counsel’s invitation to retain
this case on our docket for an indeterminate period, and we dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: September 8, 2011
3