Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00351-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF R.G.M.R., a Child
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01101
Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal, stating he “desires to appeal the Memorandum of
Associate Judge’s Order signed on or about May 16, 2018.” The Memorandum of Associate
Judge’s Order was a signed order terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child, R.G.M.R.
The Memorandum of Associate Judge’s Order also suspended all visitation R.G.M.R. had with her
mother. R.G.M.R.’s mother timely requested a de novo hearing. The associate judge thereafter
signed an amended order on June 22, 2018.
The record does not indicate that R.G.M.R.’s mother waived her right to a de novo hearing.
See TEX. FAM. CODE § 201.015(g). When R.G.M.R.’s mother timely filed a request for a de novo
hearing, the trial court was required to hold a hearing. See id. § 201.015(f). Therefore, the amended
04-18-00351-CV
order is not a final, appealable order. See In re J.A.D.L., Jr., No. 04-18-00141-CV, 2018 WL
1936866, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 25, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
On June 15, 2018, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by July 5, 2018, why this
appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant
filed a timely response, stating the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights is final as to
him. However, his response acknowledges the trial court’s amended order is still “subject to the
Mother’s de novo hearing, currently set on July 16, 2018.” See TEX. FAM. CODE. § 201.007
(providing an associate judge’s final order “becomes final after the expiration of the period [of
time to request a de novo hearing] if a party does not request a de novo hearing in accordance with
that section.”). Because the amended order is not a final, appealable order, we must dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See In re J.A.D.L., Jr., 2018 WL 1936866, at *1 (dismissing appeal
when one parent timely requested a de novo hearing and the other timely appealed).
PER CURIAM
-2-