Order Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 20, 2025

In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-25-00179-CV

ALICIA GLENNY, Appellant V. JEREMY EPPERSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 459th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-FM-23-007793

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Alicia Glenny has filed a motion challenging the trial court’s order, signed on October 8, 2025, finding her not indigent and requiring her to pay court costs in the underlying matter, a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g). The order contains detailed findings as to Glenny’s In her motion, Glenny also asks that we review the amount of the supersedeas bond that she was required to file in perfecting her appeal in the underlying matter. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2.

When the trial court rules on her pending “motion to eliminate supersedeas bond,” she may separately seek review of the ruling in that appeal, appellate cause number 15-25-00160-CV.

See id. R. 24.3 (a), R. 24.4(a). income and expenses and conclusions, and a reporter’s record of the hearing on the indigency contest has been filed by the court reporter. Id. R. 145(f) To establish her indigency, Glenny was required to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that [she] would be unable to pay the costs, or a part thereof, or give security therefore, if [she] really wanted to and made a good-faith effort to do so[.]” Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684, 686 (Tex. 2008). Having reviewed the motion and the record we cannot conclude that that the trial court’s order sustaining the challenge to Glenny’s indigency constitutes an abuse of its discretion. See Strickland v. iHeartMedia, Inc., 668 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.) (reviewing trial court’s order sustaining contest to indigency under abuse-of-discretion standard).

Accordingly, we deny the motion and affirm the trial court’s order.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.