In the Interest of K.D., a Child v. the State of Texas
Docket 02-26-00102-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 02-26-00102-CV
Appeal from a Tarrant County trial court family-law judgment appointing the Department permanent managing conservator and naming parents possessory conservators
Summary
The court granted the father's request to dismiss his own appeal in a child custody case. The Department of Family and Protective Services had removed the child and filed to terminate parental rights; instead the parties reached an agreed judgment appointing the Department permanent managing conservator while mother and father remained possessory conservators. The father, incarcerated at the time, initially appealed but after new appellate counsel secured a hearing and the father waived his motion for new trial and the appeal, he moved to dismiss the appeal, which the court granted under the appellate rules.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellant father could dismiss his own appeal
- Whether the waiver of a motion for new trial and of the appeal by the appellant at a hearing foreclosed further appellate review
Court's Reasoning
The court accepted the father's voluntary motion to dismiss his appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The record shows the father, though incarcerated, was represented at trial and later by appointed appellate counsel who obtained a hearing where the father waived his new-trial motion and the appeal; those actions demonstrated the father's intent to abandon appellate review. Therefore dismissal was appropriate under the applicable procedural rule.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1)
Parties
- Appellant
- A.C. (Father)
- Respondent
- Department of Family and Protective Services
- Appellee
- D.B. (Mother)
- Judge
- Elizabeth Kerr
Key Dates
- Opinion delivered
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Confirm trial-court orders
All parties should obtain certified copies of the final trial-court judgment to confirm the current conservatorship and possession orders remain effective.
- 2
Consult counsel about post-judgment remedies
If the father or other parties believe there are grounds to reopen proceedings, they should consult an attorney promptly about possible motions for rehearing, bill of review, or other post-judgment relief and associated deadlines.
- 3
Comply with conservatorship terms
The parties and the Department should continue to follow the rights and duties set out in the judgment regarding possession, access, and management of the child's care.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed the father's appeal after he moved to dismiss it and had waived his motion for new trial and the appeal at a hearing.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The primary parties affected are the father, the mother, and the Department of Family and Protective Services; the custody arrangement in the trial court judgment remains in effect.
- What happens next in the underlying case?
- Because the appeal was dismissed, the trial court's judgment appointing the Department as permanent managing conservator and naming the parents possessory conservators remains in place.
- Can the father still appeal?
- Not absent a timely motion for rehearing or other exceptional procedural vehicle; he voluntarily dismissed the appeal and waived the motion for new trial at the hearing.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00102-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF K.D., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-758200-24
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Appellant A.C.’s (Father’s1) motion, we dismiss his appeal.
The Department of Family and Protective Services removed K.D. (Kim) from
D.B. (Mother) because it had—among other concerns—concerns about her mental
health. At the time of the removal, Mother claimed that she did not know who Kim’s
father was.
The Department filed a petition to terminate Mother’s and—after determining
his identity—Father’s parental rights to Kim. Father was in prison. The trial court
appointed his cousin and her husband as Kim’s temporary possessory conservators.
At trial, Father was not personally present but was represented by counsel. The
parties announced that they had reached an agreement. In accordance with that
agreement, the trial court signed a judgment in which
• it appointed the Department as Kim’s permanent managing
conservator;
• it appointed Mother and Father as Kim’s possessory conservators
with rights of possession and access; and
• it identified Father’s cousin and her husband as Kim’s temporary
possessory conservators.
Despite the parties’ purported agreement, which did not include termination of
any parental rights, Father’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal and a motion to
1
To protect the child’s identity, we use an alias when referring to her and refer
to her family members by their relationship to her or by their relationship to other
family members. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
withdraw and to appoint appellate counsel. Two days later, the trial court granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw and appointed appellate counsel, who
• filed a motion for new trial that included a letter that Father had
written from prison opposing the agreed judgment;
• obtained a hearing on the motion; and
• managed to have Father present for the hearing.
At the hearing, Father waived both his motion for new trial and his appeal.
Father now moves to dismiss his appeal. Accordingly, we grant his motion and
dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Delivered: April 23, 2026
3