DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 28, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00094-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Reichek
This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of appellant’s
parental rights. In the notice of appeal, appellant states she is appealing the “Final
Custody Determination in the above referenced case to the County Court at Law in
and for Kaufman County on Thursday, January 12, 2023.” The record before this
Court does not contain a judgment signed on that date or any other date.
Accordingly, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal and directed
appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern. We cautioned appellant that
failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.
Counsel for appellant has informed the Court that she would not file a response.1
Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have
jurisdiction only to review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse,
LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal
if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate deadlines run from the date the judgment
is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Without a signed judgment or other appealable
order, there is nothing for this Court to review and the appeal is premature. See In
Int. of X.M.P., No. 05-18-01416-CV, 2019 WL 180698, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Jan. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Because the record before this Court does not contain a judgment and
nothing shows that the signing of a judgment is imminent, we dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to filing a new notice of appeal after the
trial court signs a judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
230094F.P05
1
We note that appellant filed a pro se motion requesting an extension of time to submit the final
judgment. Appellant is represented by counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation. See
Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Accordingly, the Court takes no
action on the motion.
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. On Appeal from the County Court at
AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN Law, Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC.
No. 05-23-00094-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek.
Justices Nowell and Garcia
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
Judgment entered February 28, 2023
–3–