In the Interest of T. B. and J. W.--Appeal from 420th District Court of Nacogdoches County

NO. 12-06-00338-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

APPEAL FROM THE 420TH

IN THE INTEREST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

OF T.B. AND J.W.

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John Walker appeals the trial court s final order in a conservatorship and termination proceeding brought by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). In one issue, Walker contends the evidence is insufficient to support the termination and his due process rights have been violated. We affirm.

Appellate Review of Subchapter E Final Orders

DFPS brought suit seeking conservatorship of J.W. and termination of the parent-child relationship. The appealed order terminated Walker s parental rights and appointed DFPS as permanent managing conservator of J.W.1

Subchapter E of Chapter 263 of the Texas Family Code governs final orders in conservatorship and termination proceedings in cases involving children under DFPS care. In re A.J.K., 116 S.W.3d 165, 169-70 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The Texas Family Code requires an appellant seeking review of a subchapter E final order to file with the trial court, no later than fifteen days after the final order is signed, a statement of points on which the appellant intends to appeal. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007). The statement may be filed separately or may be combined with a motion for new trial. Id. Section 263.405 was enacted in 2001 to reduce postjudgment delays and screen out frivolous appeals. See In re R.J.S., 219 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Tex. App. Dallas 2007, pet. denied). An appellate court may not consider any issue that was not specifically presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of points. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 263.405(i) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

The final order in this case was signed on July 28, 2006. Walker filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 9, 2006. He did not file a statement of points or a motion for new trial. Accordingly, we cannot consider the contentions he raises on appeal. See id.; In re R.J.S., 219 S.W.3d at 625-26.

Disposition

Because we are precluded from considering the issue Walker raises on appeal, we affirm the trial court s order.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered March 26, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

1 T.B. is J.W. s half brother but not Walker s child. T.B s parentage is not a subject of this appeal.