In the Interest of S.B., a Child Appeal from 393rd District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-21-00273-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., A CHILD On Appeal from the 393rd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-0938-393 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant C.M. (Mother) attempts to appeal from the trial court’s May 21, 2021 order adjudicating appellee M.B. (Father) to be the biological father of S.B. (Sam), appointing Father as Sam’s sole managing conservator, appointing Mother as Sam’s possessory conservator, and requiring Mother to pay Father monthly child support. Because Mother filed a request to set aside this order on June 2, 2021, her notice of appeal was due no later than August 19, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Mother filed her notice of appeal on September 2, 2021—fourteen days after the appellate deadline. We notified the parties of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal because the notice of appeal appeared untimely. And we gave Mother the opportunity to respond and provide a reasonable explanation. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3, 42.3(a), 44.3. Mother did not respond. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional; without a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 26.3. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. But even when an extension motion is implied, the appellant still must reasonably 2 explain the need for an extension. See Jones v. City of Hous., 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Because Mother did not do so, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382, 383 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (per curiam). /s/ Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice Delivered: October 21, 2021 3
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.
