In the Interest of A.N.G. and A.G., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 8, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00050-CV
__________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.G. AND A.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 446th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. E25010062FM

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
This is an appeal from an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
In the order, the trial court found that Appellant was the father of the children, A.N.G.
and A.G. The trial court appointed Appellant and the mother of the children as joint
managing conservators and ordered, among other things, that Appellant pay child
support to the mother. The order was signed by an associate judge on March 4, 2025,
after it held a hearing on the matter on March 3. On March 6, Appellant, proceeding
pro se, filed “Respodent’s [sic] Appeal on Judge’s Ruling,” stating that he
“disagree[d] with the Judge’s ruling and wish[ed] to appeal.” In his prayer for relief,
he requested that “the judgment be overturned, and a new hearing be reset.” In the
“notice,” Appellant did not identify the court to which the appeal was taken as
required by Rule 25.1(d)(4) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.1(d). When this appeal was docketed, we informed Appellant that it was
unclear from his filing whether he intended to file a request for a de novo hearing in
the district court or whether he intended to file a direct appeal in this court because
the “notice” was filed within three days of the associate judge’s order. See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 201.007, 201.015 (West 2020). We requested that Appellant
respond to clarify, and notified him that the filing fee was due to be filed on
March 13, 2025.
In letters dated March 14, March 27, and March 28, we reminded Appellant
of our response request and the fee that was due in this court, and we notified
Appellant that the failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3. Appellant eventually filed a response on April 8, stating that
his “intention was not to appeal against the decision to the Eleventh District Court,”
but that he wanted to “overturn or reverse the decision made by the Honorable Judge
of the Office of the Attorney General at the Virtual Hearing” set on March 3. He
stated that, “[s]ince that date, [he has] filed an Original Petition for Divorce” under
a different cause number in the same court. We notified Appellant by letter that we
cannot give legal advice, and that if Appellant does not wish to pursue an appeal of
the judgment in this court, he is requested to inform us in writing or submit a motion
to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure on or before April 21, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We again
reminded him of the filing fee and stated that a failure to comply with either of these
requirements would result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant has not filed a
response, nor has he paid the filing fee as of the date of this order.

2
Because Appellant has failed to pay the required filing fee, failed to comply
with this court’s directives, and indicated that his “intention was not to appeal against
the decision” to this court, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

May 8, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3