In the Interest of R.G.M.R., a Child Appeal from 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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-
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.
