Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 12-25-00341-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County
Synopsis
The Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed a parental termination appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the mandatory 20-day deadline for accelerated cases. Although the notice was filed within the 15-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, the appellant’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay—even after a specific invitation from the court—precluded the court from granting an extension of time.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas family law, termination of parental rights and certain SAPCR orders are governed by the strictures of accelerated appeals. Unlike standard civil litigation, where a Motion for New Trial or a Request for Findings of Fact can extend the appellate timetable to 90 days, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(b) explicitly states that these post-judgment filings do not toll the 20-day deadline for accelerated appeals. For practitioners, this case serves as a stark reminder that the “standard” 30-day window is non-existent in termination cases. Missing the 20-day mark without a robust and timely “reasonable explanation” for the delay effectively functions as a waiver of the client’s right to challenge the termination of their parental rights, as the appellate court is powerless to “alter the time for perfecting an appeal” outside the narrow confines of Rule 26.3.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation originated from a judgment of termination signed by the 402nd Judicial District Court on November 19, 2025. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline to perfect an appeal in this accelerated matter was December 9, 2025. The appellant, J.K., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2025—six days past the deadline, but within the 15-day “grace period” provided by Rule 26.3.
Recognizing the filing was untimely but within the Verburgt window, the Court of Appeals notified J.K. on January 7, 2026, that the notice of appeal failed to establish jurisdiction. The court explicitly informed J.K. that it would imply a motion for extension of time but required J.K. to submit a written response providing a reasonable explanation for the delay by January 19, 2026. The appellant failed to respond to the court’s inquiry or provide any explanation for the late filing.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the appellate court could exercise jurisdiction over an accelerated appeal where the notice of appeal was filed late and the appellant failed to provide a “reasonable explanation” for the delay to justify an extension under TRAP 26.3.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which establishes the 20-day deadline for accelerated appeals, and Rule 28.1(b), which prohibits the extension of that deadline through post-trial motions. The court also applied Rule 26.3 and the precedent established in Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), which allows for an implied motion for extension of time if the notice is filed within 15 days of the deadline. Finally, the court cited Rule 10.5(b), which requires a motion for extension to include facts reasonably explaining the need for more time.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. While the court was willing to follow the Verburgt doctrine by implying a motion for extension, it noted that an implied motion does not relieve the appellant of the burden to provide a “reasonable explanation” for the late filing. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; therefore, J.K.’s lack of counsel did not excuse the failure to follow procedural rules.
Because J.K. ignored the court’s January 7th notice and failed to provide any factual basis for the delay by the supplemental deadline, the court found it had no choice but to treat the notice of appeal as untimely. The court noted that it is not authorized by Rule 2 to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in civil cases, meaning the failure to meet the requirements of Rule 26.3 created an insurmountable jurisdictional bar.
Holding
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the cause. The holding was based on the appellant’s failure to timely perfect the appeal and the subsequent failure to respond to the court’s notice requiring a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The court further noted as a secondary procedural deficiency that the appellant had failed to file the required docketing statement under Rule 32.1, though the dismissal turned primarily on the jurisdictional timing issue.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this opinion highlights the high stakes of the 20-day accelerated clock. Practitioners must treat the date of the signed order as the “T-minus” point for appellate deadlines, regardless of whether they intend to file a Motion for New Trial for the sake of the trial record. If a deadline is missed, the “reasonable explanation” required under Verburgt should be filed immediately and must be substantive—simply stating “oversight” may not always suffice in all districts, and total silence, as seen here, is always fatal.
Checklists
Accelerated Appeal Deadline Management
- Identify the Order: Confirm if the order involves termination of parental rights or is otherwise categorized as accelerated under TRAP 28.1.
- Calendar the 20-Day Mark: Calculate 20 days from the date the judge signs the order, not the date the ruling was pronounced.
- Disregard Tolling Motions: Remind the trial team that Motions for New Trial, Motions to Modify, or Requests for Findings of Fact will not extend the appellate deadline.
- Perfect Early: File the notice of appeal as soon as the decision to appeal is made to avoid last-minute electronic filing issues.
Salvaging a Late Notice (The Verburgt Window)
- Confirm the 15-Day Window: Ensure the notice is filed within 15 days of the original 20-day deadline.
- File a Formal Motion: Do not rely on the court to “imply” a motion; file a formal TRAP 26.3 motion for extension immediately.
- Draft a “Reasonable Explanation”: Provide a factual narrative explaining the delay. The explanation should show the delay was not deliberate or the result of conscious indifference.
- Monitor Court Correspondence: Assign a staff member to check the appellate portal daily for jurisdictional notices or “show cause” orders from the Clerk.
Citation
In the Interest of K.K. and K.K., Children, No. 12-25-00341-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
~~920dc77e-f3e8-4bfc-b585-04d33fb45224~~
Share this content: