In the Interest of M.P. Jr. and A.P., Children, 13-26-00134-CV, February 23, 2026.
On appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed a parental termination appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to provide a final, signed written order from the trial court. Despite receiving notice of the jurisdictional defect and an opportunity to cure, the appellant failed to establish that an appealable judgment existed, necessitating dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of parental termination and high-conflict SAPCR litigation, the timeline for appeal is often accelerated and the stakes are uniquely high. This decision underscores a fundamental trap for the unwary: an oral pronouncement of termination or a docket entry is insufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction. For family law practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the appellate clock and the court’s jurisdiction are tethered to the physical signature of the judge on a written instrument. Failure to secure that signature and ensure it reaches the appellate record—especially after a defect notice—is fatal to the client’s right to review.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant M.P. Sr. sought to appeal a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights over his minor children, M.P. Jr. and A.P. The notice of appeal was filed on January 30, 2026, referencing a trial court action from the previous day. Critically, the appellant admitted within the notice of appeal itself that no written order had yet been signed by the judge of the 430th District Court. On February 4, 2026, the Clerk of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals issued a formal notice to the appellant stating that there appeared to be no final, appealable order. The Clerk warned the appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the jurisdictional defect was not cured within ten days. The appellant did not establish jurisdiction or correct the record within that timeframe.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the appellate court possesses jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where the appellant concedes the absence of a signed, written order at the time of filing and fails to subsequently provide such an order after notice. A secondary issue was whether dismissal is required under TRAP 42.3 when an appellant ignores a clerk’s notice regarding a jurisdictional defect.
Rules Applied
The Court relied upon the foundational principle that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to the review of final judgments or specific interlocutory orders authorized by statute, citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. and Ogletree v. Matthews. The Court specifically applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3, which authorizes an appellate court to dismiss an appeal on its own motion for want of jurisdiction or for a party’s failure to comply with a requirement of the rules or a notice from the clerk.
Application
The Court’s analysis was straightforward and procedural. It noted that while a notice of appeal may be filed, the court’s power to act is predicated on the existence of a final judgment. Because the appellant explicitly stated in the notice of appeal that no written order existed, the Court found an immediate jurisdictional vacuum. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court provided a grace period for the appellant to secure the necessary written order or otherwise prove that jurisdiction was proper. When the appellant failed to respond to the Clerk’s February 4 notice within the ten-day window, the Court determined that the appellant had failed to carry the burden of establishing jurisdiction. The Court treated the absence of a signed order not merely as a technicality, but as a barrier to the court’s very authority to hear the case.
Holding
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because there was no final, appealable written order signed by the trial court. Without a signed judgment, the appellate process cannot be initiated, regardless of the merits of the underlying parental termination.
The Court further held that dismissal was mandatory under TRAP 42.3(a) and (c). Since the appellant was given notice of the defect and failed to correct it or otherwise show that the court had jurisdiction, the Court exercised its authority to dismiss the matter on its own motion.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case emphasizes the necessity of “closing the loop” between the trial court’s bench ruling and the appellate court’s clerk. In the rush to meet the strict deadlines of an accelerated appeal in a termination case, counsel may file a notice of appeal prematurely. While TRAP 27.1 generally treats a prematurely filed notice of appeal as effective once the order is signed, this case proves that the rule is not self-executing if the appellant remains passive. If the trial court is dilatory in signing the final decree, counsel must proactively seek a signature or move for an extension of time in the appellate court to cure the defect, rather than allowing a clerk’s notice to go unanswered.
Checklists
Ensuring Appellate Jurisdiction
- Verify that a written judgment or order has been signed by the trial judge; oral pronouncements are insufficient to sustain an appeal.
- Confirm the order contains “finality” language or actually disposes of all parties and all claims.
- If filing a “premature” notice of appeal under TRAP 27.1, track the trial court’s signing of the order daily to ensure the record is eventually perfected.
Responding to Jurisdictional Defect Notices
- Calendar the 10-day (or otherwise specified) deadline for responding to an appellate clerk’s notice immediately upon receipt.
- If the written order has not been signed, file a motion in the trial court for entry of judgment and simultaneously file a motion for extension of time in the appellate court explaining the delay.
- Prepare a supplemental clerk’s record request once the order is signed to ensure the appellate court receives the signed instrument.
- Draft a formal response to the appellate court’s jurisdictional inquiry that specifically addresses the existence of the order or the steps being taken to secure it.
Citation
In the Interest of M.P. Jr. and A.P., Children, No. 13-26-00134-CV, 2026 WL (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 23, 2026, no pet. mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~c99a5aa4-6d61-49e6-ac0b-3cb4484aef2b~~
Share this content: