Background

• K.S. is the mother of J.M. (born Jan 27, 2006) and Z.M. (born Jan 14, 2010).
• The Department filed an original petition for protection, conservatorship, and termination of K.S.’s parental rights, and was appointed temporary managing conservator; K.S. was temporary possessory conservator.
• At trial, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that K.S. engaged in acts or omissions supporting termination under Texas Family Code §161.001(1), and termination was in the children’s best interest.
• The trial court ordered termination of the parent-child relationship between K.S. and both children.
• K.S. filed a motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a notice of appeal, and a request for findings; the court did not file findings, and the district clerk forwarded the motion as a notice of appeal.
• The Department argues KS. failed to invoke this court’s jurisdiction because the motion is not a bona fide notice of appeal.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (test for bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction varies by context)
• Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments, 776 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1989) (jurisdiction depends on bona fide attempt, not form)
• Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, LP, 244 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. 2008) (factors to determine bona fide invocation of jurisdiction)
• In re J.H.G., 302 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2010) (points not required to invoke jurisdiction under new regime)
• In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (predecessor requirements; combined filings not jurisdictional via points)
• Nance v. Evandale Indep. Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 2271599 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (conditional notice of appeal not valid for jurisdictional purposes)