In the Interest of J. A. A., a Child Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00067-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN THE INTEREST OF J. A. A., A CHILD On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras,1 and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras In this appeal, appellant A.A.,2 the mother of the child J.A.A.,3 contests the trial court’s order in the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship signed on December 22, 2015. Among other things, the order: (1) appointed the presumed father, 1 Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 et seq. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 2 We refer to the child and her parents by their initials in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 3 Also referred to in the record as J.J.A. C.A., permanent managing conservator of the child; (2) ordered “no contact until [A.A.] appears in Court and a clean hair follicle test”; and (3) required A.A. to make monthly child support payments to C.A. On appeal, A.A. contends that (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the order, and (2) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. She also asserts that she received insufficient notice of the trial. A.A. asks us to reverse the order and for any further relief to which she may be entitled. Appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the “Department”), concedes that it “failed to elicit testimony from any witnesses or proffer any exhibits into evidence” at trial. Therefore, the Department agrees that the order was rendered without sufficient evidence. In its brief, the Department’s counsel represents that he has spoken to appellant’s counsel and that “the parties have agreed that this case should be reversed and remanded for new trial.” The Department asks that we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new trial in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, due to the unique circumstances of this case, in which both parties to this appeal appear to request the same relief, we reverse the trial court’s judgment without addressing the merits, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. See In the Interest of J.W., No. 13-14-00559-CV, 2016 WL 1316687, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 10, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). DORI CONTRERAS Justice Delivered and filed the 9th day of February 2017. 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.
