In the Interest of M. L. W., a child Appeal from County Court at Law of Nacogdoches County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00235-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § APPEAL FROM THE § COUNTY COURT AT LAW § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE INTEREST OF M. L. W., A CHILD MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal by which she purports to appeal an order terminating her parental rights to M.L.W. Appellant states in her notice of appeal that the order was “entered” on September 9, 2015. However, the information received in this appeal does not show that an order of termination has been signed. On September 21, 2015, this court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal does not include a final judgment or other appealable order. Therefore, the record does not show that this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Appellant was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before October 1, 2015, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The October 1 deadline has now passed, and we have not received a final judgment or other appealable order in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3, 44.3. Opinion delivered October 7, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 7, 2015 NO. 12-15-00235-CV IN THE INTEREST OF M. L. W., A CHILD, Appeal from the County Court at Law of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. AD1400168) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
