Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2011

in the Interest of B. F., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

in the Interest of B. F., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 30, 2011

in the Interest of B. F., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Opinion

Opinion issued June 30, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00808-CV

———————————

In the Interest of B.F, a child

 

 

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-00600J

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Angelina Mayling Flores a/k/a Angelina Munoz, has neither established indigence nor paid all the required fees for this appeal to proceed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless appellant is indigent); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a) (West 2005), § 101.041 (West Supp. 2010) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in Tex. R. App. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals).  She also has not arranged for the preparation and filing of an appellate record.  See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a), (b) (conditioning preparation of clerk’s and reporter’s records on satisfactory arrangements for payment, unless appellant is indigent).

          This Court has twice notified Ms. Munoz that this appeal was subject to dismissal, once for nonpayment of fees and once for failure to arrange for a record.  On both occasions, we referred Ms. Munoz to the appropriate appellate rule by which she could claim indigence in this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence).  Ms. Munoz has made no claim of indigence in this Court, and she has not otherwise adequately responded to the notices that the appeal is eligible for dismissal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). 

          Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

          We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.