Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 23, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01285-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G.E.D., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 470-51847-2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
In 2016, the trial court rendered a final order in a suit to modify the parent–child
relationship in which the court granted Father’s petition to geographically restrict where Mother
could establish the primary residence of their daughter G.E.D. Mother perfected this appeal.
While this appeal was pending, Father filed a new petition to modify the parent–child
relationship. In 2017, the trial court rendered a new final modification order further changing the
parties’ custody arrangement. Mother appealed that order too. We affirmed that new
modification order in In re G.E.D., No. 05-17-00160-CV, 2018 WL 258982 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Jan. 2, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
This Court notified the parties that it intended to dismiss this appeal as moot unless a
party filed a letter brief demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We
received no letter briefs.
We dismiss the appeal as moot.
We lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. Blank v. Nuszen, No. 01-13-01061-
CV, 2015 WL 4747022, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem.
op.). A controversy becomes moot if the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Id.
The foregoing principles dictate that this case is moot. The trial court’s 2017 order
constitutes a new final order that replaced the 2016 order. Even if we were to agree with Mother
and reverse the 2016 order, she would still be subject to the 2017 order. In Blank, the Houston
First Court of Appeals held that an appeal from a superseded modification order was moot in
light of a subsequent unappealed modification order. Id. at *2–3. Here, Mother appealed the
2017 modification order, but we have affirmed it. Accordingly, reversal of the 2016 order would
not afford her any relief. Thus, this appeal is moot because the issues presented are no longer
“live.” See id. at *3.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
161285F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF G.E.D., A CHILD On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-16-01285-CV Trial Court Cause No. 470-51847-2008.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
Justices Francis and Myers participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that appellee Averille Dansby recover his costs of this appeal from
appellant Chelsea Dilworth.
Judgment entered January 23, 2018.
–3–
in the Interest of G.E.D., a Child
Combined Opinion