Opinion issued June 18, 2009                                                                       

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO.   01-08-00587-CV

MICHAEL S. TILOTTA, Appellant

V.

DEWANA JO SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No.  0210106

MEMORANDUM OPINION

           On February 20, 2004, the trial court signed an order terminating Michael Tilotta’s parental rights to C., a child born during his marriage to Dewana Smith.  Tilotta noticed his appeal from that order on March 10, 2004.  After giving Tilotta due notice, we dismissed his appeal on August 12, 2004 for failure either to prove indigence or pay filing fees. 

The Supreme Court denied Tilotta’s petition for review on October 29, 2004, and the termination order became final 30 days after the Supreme Court denied Tilotta’s petition for discretionary review, on November 28, 2004. 

Nevertheless, in the spring of 2008, Tilotta filed a series of motions in the trial court in an attempt to revive the termination proceeding and ultimately, to obtain a vacatur of the trial court’s 2004 termination order.  The trial court signed an order denying the requested relief on March 19, 2008, and Tilotta filed his notice of appeal on June 30, 2008. 

The Family Code accelerates the final disposition of an order terminating parental rights by shortening the appellate deadlines and instructing the appellate court to render its decision “with the least possible delay.” Tex.  Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(a) (Vernon 2009).  Specifically, the statute provides:

Not later than the 15th day after the date a final order is signed by the trial judge, a party who intends to request a new trial or appeal the order must file with the trial court . . . a request for a new trial; or . . . if an appeal is sought, a statement of the point or points on which the party intends to appeal.

Id. § 263.405(b).  Further, post-trial motions in cases involving termination of parental rights do not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(b).  Id. § 263.405(c) (emphasis added); see Tex. R. App. P. 28.1 (declaring that post-trial motions do not extend deadline for filing accelerated appeal). 

Tilotta did not file his 2008 post-trial motions within 15 days of the trial judge’s February 20, 2004 final order as required under the statute.  The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on them.  Its order denying those motions is a nullity, and this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                          Jane Bland

                                                          Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Bland.