In The Interest of Justin Palacios, A Child--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Brazos County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-96-077-CV

 

IN THE MATTER OF J. P., A CHILD

 

 

From the County Court at Law #2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 7780-CCL 2

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Yanira Palacios attempts to appeal from a judgment terminating her parent-child relationship with J.P. Because she did not attempt to perfect her appeal within the proper time period and no motion for an extension of time to perfect her appeal was filed, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over her appeal and dismiss this cause.

After a jury trial, the court signed a "Decree of Termination" severing the parent-child relationship on January 2, 1996. Yanira had filed a motion for a new trial on December 1, 1995, after the jury trial but before the court's judgment was signed. This motion became effective upon the signing of the judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306c. Thus, Yanira had ninety days after January 2, i.e. until April 1, 1996, to perfect her appeal from this judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 41(a)(1). She did not file a notice of appeal until April 16, fifteen days too late. // Although the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen day window for obtaining an extension of time to perfect the appeal, no motion was presented to this court requesting such an extension. Id. 41(a)(2); Ludwig v. Enserch Corp., 845 S.W.2d 338, 339-40 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). Thus, she has failed to timely perfect her appeal. The time period for perfecting an appeal is jurisdictional. Davies v. Massey, 561 S.W.2d 799, 800 (Tex. 1978); El Paso Sharky's v. Amparan, 831 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex. App. El Paso 1992, writ denied). Because Yanira failed to perfect her appeal within the jurisdictional time period and failed to timely request an extension of time for perfection, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Id.; McDonald v. Newmyer, 775 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied). On May 17, we advised her and the State by letter that this appeal was not duly perfected; however, neither party has responded to our notice. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2), 83.

Therefore, we dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed June 12, 1996

Do not publish