In the Interest of K. L. L.--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Williamson County (majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00294-CV In the Interest of K. L. L. FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 12-0692-FC3, HONORABLE TAMARA ARRINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 27, 2012, John Gilbert Nedwick filed in this Court a Notice of Appeal from Associate Judge s Ruling, which was docketed as No. 03-12-00294-CV. The notice of appeal requested de novo consideration of the issues presented to the Associate Judge on April 18, 2012. Nedwick s relationship to K.L.L., the minor who is the subject of the underlying proceeding, is not apparent from the notice of appeal or other documents on file herein. On May 9, 2012, Nedwick filed a letter explaining that the notice of appeal was inadvertently filed with this Court by the Williamson County District Clerk s office after Nedwick filed a notice seeking an appeal de novo of an associate judge s rulings in a family law matter. Nedwick states that it was not his intention to file an appeal in this Court. The family code authorizes a trial court judge to refer certain family law matters to associate judges. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 201.001-.209 (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). After a hearing conducted by an associate judge, the associate judge must send his signed and dated report, including any proposed order, to the referring court. Id. § 201.011(e). An order adopting an associate judge s report as the order of the court disposes of all issues and all parties and therefore is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See In re C.N., 313 S.W.3d 490, 492, (Tex. App. Dallas 2010, no pet.). In this case, there is no such order. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. _____________________________________________ J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: May 25, 2012 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.