In the Interest of E.D., a Child v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00079-CV
___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 442nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-10169-442

Before Birdwell, Bassel, Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Father,1 proceeding pro se, attempts to bring a restricted appeal of

the trial court’s “Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution.” See Tex. R. App. P. 30.

The trial court signed its order on March 4, 2025, so Father’s notice of appeal was due

September 4, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c) (“[I]n a restricted appeal, the notice of

appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment or order is signed.”).

However, Father did not file his notice of appeal until February 5, 2026, making it

untimely. See id.

To sustain a restricted appeal, the filing party must show, among other things,

that he filed his notice of appeal within six months after the judgment was signed. See

Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. 2020). This requirement is jurisdictional in

this court. Id. at 497. Because Father did not file his notice of appeal within six

months after the trial court’s order was signed, we do not have jurisdiction over his

restricted appeal. See id.; Lab’y Corp. of Am. v. Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., Inc., 16 S.W.3d

527, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction

over restricted appeal because appellant did not file notice of appeal within six

months after judgment was signed).

We notified Father of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over his

restricted appeal and warned him that we could dismiss the appeal for want of

1
In termination-of-parental-rights cases, we use aliases for the names of the
children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P.
9.8(b)(2).

2
jurisdiction if he did not file a response showing grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Father filed a response, but it does not show grounds for

continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lab’y Corp. of Am., 16 S.W.3d at 529.

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 19, 2026

3