Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
from the County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County, Texas
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
T. Worthen Chief Justice.
appeals the termination of his parental rights and adoption
of the child. On appeal, he presents fifteen issues. We
dismiss for want of jurisdiction in part and affirm in part.
is the father of K.B.B. On February 24, 2015, K.B.B.'s
paternal grandmother and step-grandfather filed an original
petition for termination of D.L.B.'s parental rights and
adoption of the child. D.L.B. filed an original answer in
April 2015, and filed another original answer, request for
appointment of an attorney ad litem, and motion for issuance
of a bench warrant in November 2015.
conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found,
by clear and convincing evidence, that D.L.B. had engaged in
one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support
termination of his parental rights under subsections (B),
(C), (D), and (Q) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1).
The trial court also found that termination of the
parent-child relationship between D.L.B. and K.B.B. was in
the child's best interest. Based on these findings, the
trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship
between D.L.B. and K.B.B. be terminated. On August 22, 2016,
the trial court granted the adoption of K.B.B. by his
paternal grandmother and step-grandfather. On September 23,
2016, D.L.B. timely filed a restricted appeal regarding the
order of termination, and a notice of appeal regarding the
order of adoption.
issues one through ten, and twelve through fifteen, D.L.B.
challenges the trial court's termination order. We must
first determine whether D.L.B. is entitled to a restricted
appeal regarding the order terminating his parental rights to
prevail on his restricted appeal, D.L.B. must establish that
(1) he filed notice of the restricted appeal within six
months after the judgment was signed, (2) he was a party to
the underlying lawsuit, (3) he did not participate either in
person or through counsel in the hearing that resulted in the
judgment complained of and did not timely file any
postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and (4) error is apparent on the face of
the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 30; Alexander v.
Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004);
In re Baby Girl S., 353 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). Each element of a restricted
appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Ibarra v. City of
Laredo, Nos. 04-11-00035-CV, 04-11-00037-CV, 2012 WL
3025709, *4 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 25, 2012, pet.
denied) (mem. op.) (citing Serna v. Webster, 908
S.W.2d 487, 491 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1995, no writ)).
face of the record for purposes of a restricted appeal
consists of all the papers on file before the judgment as
well as the reporter's record. Conseco Fin. Servicing
Corp. v. Klein Indep. Sch. Dist., 78 S.W.3d 666, 670
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Lewis v.
R amirez, 49 S.W.3d 561, 564 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
2001, no pet.). Further, evidence not before the trial court
prior to final judgment is beyond the scope of review in a
restricted appeal and may not be considered. Diaz v.
Multi Serv. Tech. Sols. Corp., No. 05-14-00032-CV, 2014
WL 5768714, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 6, 2014, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (citing Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848-49).
entitled to pursue a restricted appeal, D.L.B. must first
establish that he filed notice of the restricted appeal
within six months after the judgment was signed. See
Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c). The judgment at issue is the order
of termination which was signed on May 11, 2016. D.L.B. filed