C. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and D. M., 03-21-00184-CV

The trial court terminated the parental rights of D.M. (Mother) and A.D. (Father) to child C.M., finding statutory grounds under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(K) and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Neither parent appealed; C.M.’s attorney ad litem filed a notice of appeal on C.M.’s behalf seeking correction of the judgment to reflect a different statutory ground.
Parties had entered a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) that allowed termination under subsection (O) if parents failed to file affidavits of relinquishment by March 1, 2021; Mother did not file by March 1 but filed an affidavit before the termination hearing on March 30, 2021.
C.M. argued the trial court erred by terminating under (K) instead of (O) per the MSA and sought an order reflecting termination under (O); C.M. did not seek reversal of the termination itself.
The Department and Mother moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting C.M. lacked standing because he failed to show any prejudicial effect from the form of the court’s statutory finding.
The court held C.M. had not made a prima facie showing that his interests were adversely affected by the differing statutory ground and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether C.M. has standing to appeal to require the judgment to reflect termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O) per the MSA	MSA enforcement: trial court’s refusal to enter full judgment under the MSA injured C.M.’s interest in having the MSA enforced as a contract; court was obligated to find (O) termination.	C.M. lacks standing because he suffered no prejudice—the parents’ rights were terminated (a favorable outcome), and an appellant cannot appeal a favorable judgment merely to change findings; no prima facie showing of adverse effect.	Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; C.M. lacks standing because he failed to show prejudice or adverse effect from the court’s use of (K) rather than (O).

Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (party cannot complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it)
Jack Jones Hearing Ctrs., Inc. v. State Comm. of Exam’rs in Fitting & Dispensing of Hearing Instruments, 363 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (appellant must make a prima facie showing that its interests are prejudiced by the order)
Texas Comm’n on Envt’l Quality v. Bonser-Lain, 438 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no pet.) (party obtaining a favorable judgment generally may not appeal merely to strike unfavorable findings)