IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.T., A CHILD

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 11, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00593-CV
............................
IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.T., A CHILD
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03-05790-Y
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        Father appeals the trial court's January 26, 2010 order holding him in contempt for failure to pay child support, granting judgment for arrearages, and suspending commitment. In his notice of appeal, which he mailed May 11, 2010 and which we received the following day, Father stated he was challenging a portion of the child support arrearage as well as the contempt order.
        Although a party may not challenge a judgment of contempt by direct appeal, a party may appeal a final arrearage order provided the notice of appeal is timely filed. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (time to perfect appeal); In re C.N., 313 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (noting portion of order concerning support and custody matters reviewable on direct appeal but contempt portion not). Here, Father filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, making the notice of appeal due April 26, 2010.   See Footnote 1  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4). Father's mailed notice was fifteen days late but within the extension period provided by the rules of appellate procedure. See id. 9.2(b), 26.3. Father, however, did not file the required extension motion setting forth a reasonable explanation for the need for the extension. See id. 10.5(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997).
        The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). By letter dated June 23, 2010, we directed Father to file an extension motion if he was relying on the extension provision of the appellate rules to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. We directed Father to respond by July 12, 2010. To date, Father has not filed the motion nor otherwise responded to our letter.
         Because Father's notice of appeal was untimely and he has failed to offer a reasonable explanation why the notice was late, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
 
        
100593F.P05
        
 
Footnote 1 Father filed the request December 17, 2009. Although filed prematurely, the request is deemed to have been filed on January 26, 2010 but subsequent to the time of the signing of the judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 306c.