Date: 10-01-2022

Case Style:

In the Interest of O.L.P., a Child

Case Number: 04-21-00539-CV

Judge: Irene Rios

Court:

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

On appeal from the 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Plaintiff's Attorney: The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Defendant's Attorney:

San Antonio, TX - Best Family Law Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

San Antonio, Texas – Family Law lawyer represented appellant with a a judgment terminating her6 parental righs.

On September 29, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment terminating appellant’s parental
rights to O.L.P. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 19, 2020.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(a)(1) (stating appeals in parental termination cases are governed by the
rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals); 26.1(b) (stating in an accelerated appeal the
notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days after the judgment is signed). A motion for
extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due on November 3, 2020. See id. 26.3. Appellant
did not file her notice of appeal until December 9, 2021.
“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.” In re L.R.S.,
No. 04-20-00507-CV, 2020 WL 7365444, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 16, 2020, no pet.)
(per curiam) (mem. op). A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant,
acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the
fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26). But
“once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party
can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id.
On December 30, 2021, this court issued an order directing appellant to show cause in
writing on or before January 12, 2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. We suspended all appellate deadlines pending our determination of whether we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. On January 6, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting a sixty-day
extension of time in which to file her appellant’s brief. Appellant has not responded to our
December 30 show cause order. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we are
required to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction

Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her brief as moot

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: